Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in, the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Lambeth (Norwood Division), in the room of Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, K.C. (one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court of Justice).—[Sir Frederick Thomson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Guisborough Joint Smallpox Hospital District) Bill.

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. BURNETT: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India what posts in the Civil Service in India, or civil posts under the Crown in India, are appointed, respectively, by the Secretary of State in Council and by the Secretary of State; and how many special appointments are so held in these various services

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am not quite sure what distinction my hon. Friend is referring to, since at present no appointments are made by the Secretary of State as distinct from the Secretary of State in Council. Perhaps he will let me know what he has in mind.

OFFICERS' RETIREMENT (PROPORTIONATE PENSIONS).

Mr. BURNETT: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India to what services recruited by. the Secretary of State the right to premature retirement on proportionate pension extends; and how many
officers of these services have availed themselves of these pensions since 1919, inclusive?

Sir S. HOARE: Eligibility to retire on proportionate pension is at present confined to members of the All-India Services and persons holding posts, other than listed posts, borne on the cadres of those services who were appointed or selected for appointment before 1st January, 1920, and who are not permanently employed directly under the Governor-General in Council.
I will circulate a list of the All-India Services in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total number of officers who retired on proportionate pension between November, 1921, when the scheme was introduced, and the end of 1934 is 599.

Following is the list of All-India Services:
The Indian Civil Service.
The Indian Police Service.
The Indian Forest Service.
The Indian Forest Engineering Service.
The Indian Educational Service.
The Indian Agricultural Service.
The Indian Service of Engineers.
The Indian Veterinary Service.
The Indian Medical Service (Civil).

INDIAN STATES.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE (for Duchess of ATHOLL): 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India what States are at present governed by minors or by rulers not yet invested with full ruling powers, or by rulers otherwise disqualified from exercising them?

Sir S. HOARE: A complete answer to my Noble Friend's question would entail reference to India and considerable detail in view of the fact that numerous small States and estates are, from time to time, or permanently, administered by officers of the Government of India. The chief States in which the ruler is at present unable to exercise his powers on account of his minority are, Barwani, Bharatpur, Chhatarpur, Cooch Behar, Dhar, Gwalior, Jawhar, Nabha, Nagod, Pudukkottai, and Wadhwan. The chief States in which the ruler's powers are for the time being exercised on his behalf by the Government of India are Alwar, Dewas (Senior Branch) and Jhabua.

INDIAN TERRITORIAL FORCE.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE (for Duchess of ATHOLL): 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what units of the Indian Territorial Force have been sanctioned in each of the various provinces of British India since 1919; and what was the strength of the units, respectively, on the last date for which returns are available?

Sir S. HOARE: With my Noble Friend's permission, I will send her the information for which she asks, as it involves a large number of figures.

SHELLAC (SPECULATION).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL (for Mr. MORGAN JONES): 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the disorganisation of the shellac market owing to attempts in London to corner supplies; whether he is aware that on 19th February business in shellac practically came to a standstill in Calcutta; and whether he has taken any steps, or proposes to take any steps, to protect the interests and livelihood of the Indian cultivators, collectors, and merchants of shellac

Sir S. HOARE: I have seen Press reports relating to the matter referred to by the hon. Member. As regards action by the Government, I have nothing to add to replies given on behalf of the Board of Trade and the Treasury in answer to recent questions of a similar nature.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no reply to the last part of the question was given by that Department?

Sir S. HOARE: That seems to be essentially a question for the Government of India, and I have received no official communication from the Government of India on the subject. I think it would be the Government of India, that would act if action were necessary.

SWITZERLAND (WINTER SPORTS).

Mr. REMER: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the number of fatal accidents and injuries among British visitors to Swiss mountain and pleasure resorts, he will inquire of the Swiss Government
whether their public authorities would be willing to institute closer supervision of mountain excursions and sports?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I do not think this is a good suggestion. The Swiss authorities may be relied on to leave nothing undone which is likely to promote the well-being of these visitors, and the best protection against mountain accidents is to realise what the dangers are.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as far as can be ascertained there has been no fatal accident to British visitors in Switzerland this year? The only accident has been in Austria.

M. GLOSSOP: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he has any idea of the kind of supervision that he is asked to obtain

Sir J. SIMON: I recall that Tartarin when climbing the Jungfrau was under the impression that there was a Swiss agent at the bottom of every crevasse. As to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), we draw no distinction in this matter between various parts of Europe where there are winter sports.

ABYSSINIA.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government took part at the January council meeting in the discussions which resulted in the Abyssinian Government suspending its appeal to the League; if so, what arguments were used to induce the Abyssinian Government to take this course; whether copies of the letters signed by the British commissioner, Lieutenant-Colonel E. A. M. Clifford, R.E., of the British Somaliland-Abyssinia Boundary Commission, appearing as annexes in the memorandum submitted by the Abyssinian Government to the League of Nations in January, were communicated to the Government; and, if so, whether the Government will publish its correspondence with Lieutenant-Colonel Clifford?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first and second parts of the question, the
hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the Ethiopian appeal under paragraph 2, Article XI, of the Covenant has been suspended. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East was informed on the 29th January, the council on the 19th January merely adjourned consideration of the appeal, until its next session, in view of the assurances given by both parties that they would seek an amicable settlement of their differences by direct negotiations. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative while, as regards the last part, I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to publish the reports submitted by Colonel Clifford for the confidential information of His Majesty's Government. I would add that the Abyssinian Government officially expressed their appreciation of the assistance which His Majesty's Government rendered in helping to bring about the understanding reached at Geneva on the 19th January between the Italian and Abyssinian Governments.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made with direct negotiations?

Sir J. SIMON: I require notice of that question.

MRS. NUGENT CAHILL.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Minister at The Hague has now furnished a report on the investments of Mrs. Nugent Cahill in the Amsterdam firm of Messrs. Goldwurm and Company?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Minister has reported fully on this case, and the Foreign Office have recently been in correspondence with Mrs. Cahill on the subject. So far there have not been found any grounds for intervention by His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 11.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the lack of uniformity of the administra
tion of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, and the Tuberculosis Order, 1925, by county councils in the North-West region of the Milk Marketing Board; and whether, owing to the higher costs of producing milk as a result of the efficient operation of these regulations in the West Riding of Yorkshire, he will make representations to the Milk Marketing Board with a view to producers in West Riding receiving a higher pool price than producers in other areas comprising the North-Western region?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I do not doubt that there are differences in the standard of administration of the legislation relating to milk in the region mentioned, as in other parts of the country. I may, however, point out that, under the scheme of the Milk Marketing Board for a register of accredited producers which is expected to come into operation on the 1st May, producers who comply with the prescribed conditions for securing the purity and good quality of their milk will he entitled to a guaranteed quality premium.

WHEAT ACT (STANDARD PRICE COMMITTEE).

Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: 12.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make any statement with regard to the appointment of the committee contemplated in Section 2 (3) of the Wheat Act, 1932, to consider the desirability of making any alteration in the standard price of wheat for the purposes of that Act?

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. The following gentlemen have consented to serve on the committee which has been appointed by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Scotland together with myself, as the Standard Price Committee under Section 2 (3) of the Wheat Act, 1932:

Sir John Field Beale, K.B.E. (Chairman).
Sir William Henry Peat, K.B.E., M.A., F.C.A.
Mr. W. R. Smith.

The committee, after considering general economic conditions and the conditions affecting the agricultural industry, will report as to the desirability of making any alteration in the standard price of home-grown millable wheat.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE BOARD.

Mr. LAWSON: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered two proposals put before his Department by the Unemployment Insurance Board under the special scheme for a revision of the method of electing employers' representatives to that board; whether, as these two proposals would enable purely commercial insurance undertakings to exclude from a seat on the board any representative of such bodies as friendly societies and trade unions, he will give preference to the earlier proposal of the chairman of the board, which secures representation to all types of organisations; and whether he will decline to sanction any proposal which is unjust to any particular type of employers' organisation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Only one proposal on this subject has been submitted to my right hon. Friend by the Insurance. Unemployment Board. In accordance with the usual practice notice of such a. proposal will be advertised and my right hon. Friend before coming to a decision will give careful consideration to any objections made by interested parties.

DOMESTIC SERVICE (ALIENS).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the large numbers of foreigners who have obtained employment in England in recent years as domestic servants; whether he can give the numbers of such for the years 1932, 1933 and 1934, and the conditions governing the entrance of such labour?

Mr. HUDSON: The numbers of cases in which foreigners have been permitted to take up employment as domestic servants in the United Kingdom in the years 1932, 1933 and 1934 are 3,132, 3,236 and 4,376 respectively. Permission is granted only in cases where British domestics are not available, and where the rate of wages offered is not less favourable than that ordinarily paid in this country. Permission is normally granted for a period of 12 months. I would add that the number in 1931 was 6,547.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Would not the tightening up of the restrictions mean
that a greater number of our people would be employed in this work?

Mr. HUDSON: No. Permits are in general isued by my Department only when the applicant is able to prove that no British domestic servants are available.

Mr. LAWSON: Are there any men among the people referred to, or are they just women?

Mr. HUDSON: I would not like to answer without notice, and I do not know what the hon. Member means by "just women."

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Is it suggested that our people are not prepared to accept employment of this kind when it is offered to them?

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. THORNE: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a White Paper showing the supplementary grants that will be paid to the various local authorities, and the amount paid to each local authority in consequence of the Unemployment Assistance Board not being able to take over the able-bodied unemployed on 1st March, 1935?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): As the hon. Member is aware, negotiations with English local authorities are not yet concluded. Subject to this point, I anticipate that it will be some time before the amounts finally payable to local authorities can be determined, and it is therefore likely that payments will have to be on a provisional basis for the time being. My right hon. Friend will consider, when more progress has been made, whether a White Paper giving provisional figures cart be issued.

Mr. THORNE: Between now and next Thursday when the right hon. Gentleman meets the local authorities, will he refresh his memory about the speech he made in connection with a deputation that I introduced to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in connection with the same question?

Mr. COOPER: I think the hon. Member is referring to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I
will bring his supplementary question to my right hon. Friend's notice.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour the position in relation to unemployment assistance of unemployed men cultivating allotments, group holdings and other plots, and smallholdings?

Mr. HUDSON: The board inform me that they will not make any reduction in allowances in respect of the produce of allotments cultivated by unemployed industrial workers for consumption by their households. Its policy in regard to the cultivation of group holdings and similar plots is to make no reduction for the first six months and thereafter to treat the net profit, if any, in the same manner as profit from any other occupation, the value of produce consumed in the household being ignored. As regards smallholdings, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in view of the variety of circumstances but the board's general policy in regard to unemployed men desiring to occupy smallholdings can be illustrated by reference to the arrangements made with the Land Settlement Association, under which a number of married men from the Special Areas will be given up to a, year's training on smallholdings at Potton in Bedfordshire and will be in receipt of special allowances during the training period.

Sir F. ACLAND: While thanking the Minister for his answer, may I ask him to see if he can do anything to secure wide publicity for it as it would allay a great deal of anxiety?

Mr. HUDSON: I hope the action of my right hon. Friend in putting a question down and my answer will secure that, but I will do what I can to add to it.

Dr. ADDISON: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the allotment holders of the sort of statement which they will have to send in before an estimate is made as to the nett profits referred to by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. HUDSON: I did not use the words "nett profits" in repect of allotments I said the board will not make any reduction in allowances in respect of the produce of allotments cultivated by the applicants for consumption by their household.

Dr. ADDISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious dissatisfaction that arose some time ago owing to these men being required to keep accounts, and will he take that into consideration in making the estimate to which he refers?

Mr. HUDSON: The question of nett profits which I mentioned is in connection with the cultivation of group holdings, which are not the same as allotments.

Dr. ADDISON: They are the same thing.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

Sir PERCY HARRIS (for Mr. GRAHAM WHITE): 18.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of advisory committees which have been established under the Unemployment Act, 1934, and the number of these committees which have met to give advice on local conditions?

Mr. HUDSON: Under the Unemployment Assistance Act the establishment of advisory committees is a matter entirely for the Unemployment Assistance Board. I am informed by the board that no such committees have yet been established, but that their constitution and the best method of making use of them are under active consideration.

Sir P. HARRIS:: What is the reason for this delay? The board has had several months to think the question out, and is it not time it took action?

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member had better put a question down.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL [LORDS].

Sir P. HARRIS (for Mr. WHITE): 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to proceed in present circumstances with the. Unemployment Insurance Bill [Lords]?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Yes, Sir. The Unemployment Insurance Bill [Lords] is to consolidate the law with regard to unemployment insurance, and, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware, was read a Second time on Friday last.

HOUSING (OWNER-OCCUPIERS).

Mr. MITCHESON: 20.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can furnish an estimate of the number of houses that are owned by their occupiers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend regrets that there is no information available on which such an estimate could be based.

AUDLEY (DRAINAGE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has been in communication with the Newcastle-under-Lyme Rural District Council concerning the drainage of Audley parish; and, if so, what he proposes to do about it?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is in communication with the council on this subject. Any proposals which they may submit for the sewering of the parish will be considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there a chance of getting any assistance towards the drainage of this derelict area, since the conditions there are very bad indeed?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I require notice of that question.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. MAINWARING: 22 and 23.
asked the Minister of Health (1) how many persons throughout the country under the Health Insurance Acts are placed in the category 3 (5a), and the same information separately as it affects the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth;
(2) what percentage of the total unemployed men and women in category 3 (5a) under the Health Insurance Acts have maintained their contributions and thus retain cash benefits?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The number of persons in Great Britain who come within the special provisions of Section 3 (5a) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, as amended by the Act of 1932, is estimated at 170,000, but my right hon. Friend is not able to give separate figures for particular areas. These persons are not entitled to cash benefits but can regain title to such benefits on favourable terms by return to employment, or by becoming voluntary contributors. Every week many persons who have fallen under the special provisions of Section 3 (5a) return to the
ordinary provisions of the Act, but no exact figures of the number of such persons are available.

Mr. MAINWARING: 24.
asked the Minister of Health what is the estimated total number of persons that will have lost all insurable rights, including pension, on account of unemployment from 1933 to the end of 1935?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: During the period specified in the question the only persons who can lose all insurance rights including pension by reason of unemployment are persons who before they became unemployed had been insured for less than four years, or had paid fewer than 160 contributions. Statistics are not available as to the proportion of persons lapsing after less than four years of insurance whose lapse was due to unemployment.

Mr. MAINWARING: Is the Department now prepared to consider taking some steps to secure that these people shall continue within their insurable terms?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The bulk of the people leave insurance voluntarily.

Mr. MAINWARING: That is due to unemployment. How can the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that these people leave voluntarily, since the cause of their failure to continue insurance is the fact that they have no employment?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I was referring to the people with less than four years' insurability. The great bulk of people unemployed have more than four years insurance and their pensions are secure until the end of 1935.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

FIRE-DAMP DETECTORS.

Major HILLS: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has inspected, or caused to be inspected, any automatic fire-damp detectors when in actual operation in a coal mine; and whether he is yet in a position to recommend the instalment in coal mines of any such detectors?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have personally inspected automatic detectors in operation. I gave formal notice last month
of my proposal to make general regulations requiring the provision of firedamp detectors of approved types for use by workmen in safety lamp mines. When these regulations are established, the choice of the type of detector to be provided, whether automatic or otherwise, will rest with the management of each mine concerned. Automatic detectors are already being installed in some mines on a voluntary basis and on this aspect of the matter I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given in reply to a question which he asked on 26th November last.

Major HILLS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the recommendation of the use of automatic detectors will be carried into effect?

Mr. BROWN: In reply I would only say that there will be automatic detectors on the first approved list after the regulations become operative.

EXPORT TRADE (ITALY).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Italian Government has decided to impose a quota upon imports of coal into Italy; that this quota will severely limit British coal shipments to that country, as the quota allotted until 31st March has already been exceeded; and, as there are several ships at Cardiff and other Welsh ports already loaded with coal for Italy, will he state what action is proposed to deal with this matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE, (Dr. Burgin): I am aware that the Italian Government has decided to impose a quota upon imports of coal, and of many other commodities, into Italy, and I am endeavouring to ascertain as quickly as possible what is likely to be the precise effect of the new decree, which was promulgated on 19th February, upon our coal shipments and other exports to Italy. As regards the last part of the question I am informed that the Italian Government have now decided to admit all coal destined for Italian consumption that actually left the country of origin before 19th February. No information is yet available as to the position of coal loaded or ready for loading but not yet on its
way on 19th February, but urgent representations are being made to the Italian Government on the whole matter.

Mr. HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether information was given by the Italian Government of their decision before the traders themselves were informed that they were not to ship other coal there?

Dr. BURGIN: That is an important matter which I think had better be put on the Paper. Wherever a quota is suddenly imposed upon contracts in course of being executed, we endeavour invariably to avoid hardship. Urgent representations are being made to the Italian Government on the propriety of exempting coal already ordered for which arrangements have been made, and we earnestly hope that some result upon those lines will be achieved.

Mr. HALL: Arising out of the further reply, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the representations are also dealing with this question of the quota which is a very serious matter for South Wales, because South Wales is the coalfield which supplies the bulk of the coal to Italy?

Dr. BURGIN: It is well understood that the representations are covering that point.

Mr. LAWSON: Do I take it that the representations also include contracts already entered into?

Dr. BURGIN: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CANADIAN AND RUSSIAN TIMBER (IMPORTS).

Mr. THORNE: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of soft-timber standards imported from Canada from 1932 to the nearest available date in 1934; and whether the standards from Canada are the same cut and length as those imported from other countries, especially the Russian imports?

Dr. BURGIN: Imports of sawn soft wood (other than planed or dressed) from Canada in the years 1932, 1933 and 1934, were 216,000, 605,000 and 1,081,000 loads respectively, the load of 50 cubic feet being the official unit of quantity for the purpose of the trade returns. Particulars
of imports of this and other classes of soft wood from the principal countries of supply during each of the last three years will be found in the issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for December, 1934. I understand that there is some variation in the sizes in which timber is cut in different countries.

MEAT TRADE (ANGLO-ARGENTINE COMMITTEE).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the probable expense to this country incurred by the appointment of representatives of the Government to serve on an Anglo-Argentine committee to inquire, into methods to be adopted to ensure a reasonable return to cattle producers in the Argentine?

Dr. BURGIN: It is not yet possible to formulate any precise estimate of probable expenditure but it is proposed to provide the sum of £2,250 in the Board of Trade estimate for next year to meet the expense to this country of this joint committee.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the British members of the committee will not recommend anything detrimental to the cattle-producing interest of this country?

Dr. BURGIN: I think, as this committee has been appointed to inquire and report, it would be better that I should give no assurance as to what the result of the inquiry will be.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the cattle producers of this country are taxpayers and will have to contribute a proportion of this £2,000?

MESSRS. JAMES AND SHAKES- PEARE, LIMITED (INQUIRY).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will, in addition to the inquiry with respect to the affairs of Messrs. James and Shakespeare, under Section 182 of the Companies Act of 1929, demand particulars of the connection between the directorate of one of the joint stock banks, the Tobacco Securities Trust, Limited, and the subsidiary Tobacco In
vestments, Limited, registered in the Isle of Man, which holds share capital in the Dean Finance Company, Limited, and the firm of Messrs. James and Shakespeare?

Dr. BURGIN: The attention of the official receiver will be drawn to the matters referred to by the hon. Member, and the question of further action must await his report on the affairs of James and Shakespeare, Limited, under Section 182 of the Companies Act.

Mr. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Gentleman assist the House by giving an estimate of the time required to complete the inquiries?

Dr. BURGIN: If the inquiry is to be anything like as complicated as the hon. Gentleman appears to wish to make it, I am afraid it will take longer than would otherwise be the case.

Major NATHAN: Does the hon. Gentleman think the report will be available before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Dr. BURGIN: That is a purely hypothetical question, and I really cannot answer it. I have no idea as to how many matters the official receiver will have to investigate, but, in view of the public importance which has been attached to the matter, he will undoubtedly do his work as expeditiously as it is always done in my Department.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the powers conferred upon the official receiver under Section 182 of the Companies Act are wide enough to enable him to deal with the matters mentioned in the question?

Dr. BURGIN: I think we had better exhaust the existing powers, such as they are, before we determine how wide they ought to be.

Mr. WILMOT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the exceptional circumstances connected with the failure of Messrs. James and Shakespeare, Limited, and in view of the heavy losses to innocent persons and the public apprehension caused by the speculations in commodities engaged in by Messrs. James and Shakespeare, he will order a Government inquiry into the whole of the circumstances of this attempted cornering of supplies?

Mr. COOPER: I have been asked to reply. Until the report of the official receiver has been received, no further steps can be taken.

Mr. WILMOT: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?

Mr. COOPER: My reply does cover that. It cannot be done until the report has been received.

Mr. WILMOT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this attitude on the part of the government creates the public impression that the Government wish to hush this matter up?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

IMPERIAL FORCES (PENSIONS)

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that an officer or man may serve by transfer or re-enlistment in the armed forces of two or more Empire countries for a total period of years exceeding that which qualifies for pension without being eligible to receive pension; and whether he will consult with the Service Departments of His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and in the Dominions, with the object of coming to an arrangement whereby such persons will receive pensions paid for pro rata by the countries they have served?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): In cases where officers or men of the forces of one part of the Empire are lent, seconded or transferred, for service reasons, to those of another part, I am not aware of any special difficulty having arisen in practice. As regards purely voluntary transfers and re-enlistments, it has been found impracticable to treat the service as continuous for pension purposes, and I do not feel that any good purpose would therefore be served by action on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

TIN DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES.

Major NATHAN: 31 and 32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the International Tin Committee is from time to time informed as to the direct and indirect interests in tin of
the members of the advisory committee; and, if so, whether the International Committee had the latest information before it at the meeting at the Hague on or about 20th February;
(2) whether the International Tin Committee at its meeting at the Hague, on or about 20th February, had before it when making its decision to postpone alteration in the tin production quotas any information as to the existence of a group of speculators or private tin pool, as to the tin commitments of such group or private pool, and as to the arrangements for the liquidation of the same?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The technical advisers to the Government delegations, which constitute the International Tin Committee, are all busines men who are interested in tin. The particular companies in which each is interested are known to the international committee. I am informed by the chairman of the international committee that the private tin pool has always been willing to give information to the international committee as regards its holding of tin, and that the committee was in possession of this information at its recent meeting. I should perhaps point out, to avoid confusion, that the present quotas which were fixed by the International Tin Committee in November last were fixed to operate for the quarter ending 31st March, and that the committee have announced that at their meeting on 14th March next they will fix the quotas to operate as from 1st April.

Major NATHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether the members of the International Tin Committee, in addition to information as to the stocks of tin held by various companies for dealing, have also information as to share-holdings or other interests of members of the advisory committee in those companies

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I follow the question. I asked the chairman of the International Tin Committee what information the committee had as to interests of members of the advisory committee in tin and as to the pool, and I have given the answer which I received. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman has some other points on which he would like to have information, he will put down another question.

Major NATHAN: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the question which relates to the interests in tin of members of the advisory committee? It is to that point that I would direct his attention, and his answer, if I may say so, does not touch it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Gentleman means to ask whether the International Tin Committee knows exactly how many shares in a particular company an adviser holds, I think it is most unlikely; in fact, I feel sure, they do not.

Major NATHAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the members of the advisory committee should disclose to those who are asked to act upon their advice their full interests in the commodity in question?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I understand the information that I have received, that is substantially the case. I think so. I am told that they know all the companies in which the different people are interested, and, with regard to the particular question of the pool in tin, that they always disclose the tin holding of the pool.

CRIME STATISTICS (BURGLARIES AND ROBBERIES).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House as to the number of burglaries and other robberies which have taken place in the Metropolitan police district during the past three months; and in how many cases have the criminals concerned been apprehended and convicted?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): In the three months ended 31st January, 1935, 1,854 cases of breaking into dwelling-houses and 1,221 of shopbreaking were recorded in the Metropolitan police district. In connection with 412 of these offences, 460 arrests have been made. A large number of the cases still remain undisposed of, and I cannot say how many convictions there will be. During the same period 100 other arrests were made of persons possessing housebreaking tools.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the comparatively small number of arrests and
the very large amount of crime disclosed in my right hon. Friend's reply, does he not think the whole energies of the police had much better be bent on apprehending these criminals than that they should be frittered away in apprehending decent people who take tickets in lotteries?

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (REGULATIONS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Home Secretary the reasons for proposing to apply to non-inflammable films the regulations which have been made applicable to inflammable films in the interest of protection against fire?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The revision of the regulations made in 1923 under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, has been under consideration for some time past, but at no time has it been contemplated that the same regulations should be applied to films on a. nitro-cellulose base which is highly inflammable and presents special risks and to films on an acetate base. It is well recognised that the risks are far less in the latter cam and that these considerations must be borne in mind in the framing of any regulations.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I take it from my right hon. Friend's reply that political agitation on this subject is very misdirected

Sir J. GILMOUR: No doubt.

IRISH HOSPITALS SWEEPSTAKE (CORRESPONDENCE).

Sir W. DAVISON: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has given instructions to the Postmaster-General to stop any telegram from a private individual to the Irish Free State with reference to the forthcoming Irish hospitals sweepstake; will he inform the House as to his statutory authority for withholding postal facilities from an individual who is not breaking the law; and how many telegrams relating to lotteries have been stopped since 1st January?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have explained in reply to previous questions, the power to detain a postal packet is a common law power which has frequently been recognised by statute, and the power extends to telegrams as well as to other postal packets. The distribution
in this country by the promoters of the Irish sweepstakes or their agents of Tottery tickets is unlawful, but it would not be in the public interest to explain in detail the measures which are, or may be, taken from time to time by the executive authorities to secure that the intention of Parliament to prevent the sale and distribution in this country of tickets in unlawful lotteries is not frustrated.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am asking about telegrams from private individuals whose action is entirely lawful, and does he suggest to the House that he is entitled to ask the Postmaster-General under the common law to open letters except in eases where a breach of the law is apprehended?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I have to say is that it is very regrettable that advertisement of this should take place in this House when the newspapers are prevented.

Sir W. DAVISON: 13.
asked the Postmaster-General how many private letters have been opened since the 1st January at the instance of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in order to ascertain whether they contain matter relating to sweepstakes

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend thinks that it would be contrary to the public interest to give the information for which my hon. Friend asks.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend state why it is contrary to the public interest, and is there any reason, as this is an infringement of the liberty of the private individual, why he should not give the number of cases where the private letters of people who are acting perfectly legally are opened?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will convey the hon. Gentleman's question to the Postmaster-General.

Sir W. DAVISON: I will put another question down.

MRS. BROWNHILL, PANNAL.

Major HILLS: 38.
asked the Home secretary whether he will now take the
necessary steps to enable Mrs.. Brown-bill, of Pannal, Yorkshire, to be set at liberty?

Sir GILMOUR: This case has been receiving my careful and sympathetic consideration, but I do not feel able to make any announcement at the moment.

PETROL DUTY (AIRCRAFT).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider exempting from taxation all petrol used for aircraft?

Mr. COOPER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reason which my right hon. Friend gave in the Debate on the Report stage of the Finance Bill last year for being unable to accept a proposal in the sense suggested.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the question of endeavouring to lighten the burden of these costs by relieving the industry of all unnecessary taxation?

CABLE AND WIRELESS COMPANY.

Mr. BURNETT: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give the number of the directors of the Cable and Wireless Company; and whether the number has been reduced lately in accordance with the terms of resolution (iv) of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference, 1928 [Cmd. 3163]?

Mr. COOPER: The Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference, 1928, while recognising that, in consequence of the merger, the number of directors of the merger companies would initially be large, contemplated that it would be reduced as and when opportunities offered. The directors initially numbered 22. They were reduced to 14 in 1930, since when four have died and four have been added.

ARMAMENTS (PRIVATE MANU FACTURERS).

Mr. MITCHESON: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the last ten years, any information has reached any Government Department that satisfied it that any British firm manufacturing
armaments had sought improperly to, influence the policy of His Majesty's Government or any foreign Government in the matter of armaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have caused inquiries to be made, and, as a result, I am able to say that the reply is in the negative.

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to convene the adjourned World Economic Conference; and, if so, at what date?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave on the 27th March and the 30th October last to the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) and Fulham, East (Mr. Wilmot), respectively, to which I have at present nothing to add.

RIBBON DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. V. ADAMS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to specify a date for the introduction of a measure to preclude the further spoliation of the countryside through ribbon-building?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill is in active preparation and will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it involve compensation to the landlords?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. and gallant Friend had better await the Bill.

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: When the Bill is introduced, will its provisions be retrospective?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend had better wait.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL LEAVING AGE).

Mr. TINKER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what is the Government's decision about raising the school age after hearing the opinions of the deputation which met him on 21st February?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the official account which appeared in the Press on the 22nd instant. As will be seen from that account, the Board of Education and the Scottish. Education Department are examining the whole problem, and will at the appropriate stage take the various interests concerned into consultation. In these circumstances, the hon. Member will realise that I am not in a position to say anything further for the time being.

Mr. TINKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of the period when he is likely to be able to make a decision and let the House know, because this question is agitating the minds of many people who would like to know something definite?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot add to what I have said to the deputation and repeated in this answer.

Mr. TINKER: If I put a question down in a month's time, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me a reply?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that at this time of reorganisation it would be a splendid thing if the National Government had a 10 years plan for juveniles?

SUEZ CANAL (ITALIAN MILITARY TRANSPORT).

Mr. WILMOT: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foregin Affairs what Italian troops and military supplies have passed through the Suez Canal in the last six months?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no detailed information on this subject.

CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE (PROMOTION).

Mr. McENTEE: 14.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in regard to the exceptional promotion of an assistant supervisor in the Central Telegraph Office, he is aware that the controller of the Central Telegraph Office announced that the promotion had been made without following the normal procedure; and whether, in view of the statement of the Postmaster-General that the claims and qualifications of all the supervising officers concerned were given consideration by the
Central Telegraph Office Promotion Board, he will cause an independent inquiry to be made into the claims of all the officers concerned?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I have been asked to reply. The announcement of the controller was to the effect that the promotion had been made under paragraph 28 of the report of the committee of the National Whitley Council on Promotion which provides that, in exceptional circumstances, in which the public interest makes it necessary, it is within the competence of the head of the department to make any promotion without following the normal procedure. Although the promotion was exceptional in the sense that a comparatively junior officer was selected, the usual procedure was followed by the Central Telegraph Office Promotion Board in reviewing the claims of all the senior officers, and my right hon. Friend sees no ground for ordering an independent inquiry.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the Postmaster-General aware that certain experiences and qualifications have always been held to be necessary for this post, and that the person appointed did not have any of these; and is he aware of the feeling that there was gross favouritism in regard to this appointment? May I have a reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will probably refer the hon. Member's question to the department.

ANGLO-FRENCH COMMUNIQUE (GERMAN REPLY).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a, position to make any statement in regard to the proposal of the German Government for a direct exchange of views between the two Governments as a consequence of the recent Anglo-French discussions in London?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. On receiving the German proposal on this subject His Majesty's Government inquired whether they rightly understood that the object of this meeting would be to carry consultation a stage further on all matters
referred to in the Anglo-French communiqué. I have received a reply from the German Government concurring in this description of the scope of the proposed meeting and inviting me to go to Berlin for the purpose. His Majesty's Government consider that this is a useful suggestion and I hope to visit Berlin very shortly. The date and other details remain to be arranged. The French and Italian Governments have approved the course of action proposed.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the Foreign Secretary propose to visit Moscow or any other European capital in connection with these proposed agreements?

Sir J. SIMON: That matter is under consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how far he intends to go if the Motion which he is about to move is carried? May I also enter, not a violent but a mild, protest at the regularity with which the Standing Order is being suspended?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in his last remark, but—

Mr. LANSBURY: Necessity knows no law.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. We desire to make substantial progress with the Supplementary Estimates which are on the Paper; to obtain the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which, as I have already stated, is purely a consolidation measure; and the Report stage of the Housing (Scotland) Money Resolution.

Mr. LANSBURY: There is a private Bill down for to-night, and I think it is possible that we shall not get through the Supplementary Estimates. Business that is regarded as non-controversial in all parts of the House I expect none of us would object to going through.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 28.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[3.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gluckstein, Louis Halie
Percy, Lord Eustace


Albery, Irving James
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Petherick, M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Goff. Sir Park
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pike, Cecil F.


Apsley, Lord
Graves, Marjorie
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Assheton, Raiph
Grigg, Sir Edward
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hamilton, Sir George (liford)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hanbury, Cecil
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Harris, Sir Percy
Remer, John R.


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bernays, Robert
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Rickards, George William


Blindell, James
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Robinson, John Roland


Boulton, W. W.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Hepworth, Joseph
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross, Ronald D.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brown, Brig, Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Burghley, Lord
Janner, Barnett
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Burnett, John George
Ker, J. Campbell
Soone, Lord


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Knight, Heiford
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Leckie, J. A.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Soper, Richard


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm. W)
Levy, Thomas
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Lewis, Oswald
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Clarke, Frank
Liddall, Walter S.
Storey, Samuel


Clarry, Reginald George
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Clydesdale, Marquees of
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Summersby, Charles H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Conant, R. J. E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Cooke, Douglas
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Cooper, A. Duff
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Loftus, Pierce C.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crooke, J. Smedley
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crossley, A. C.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Maitland, Adam
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Denville, Alfred
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Dickie, John P.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Donner, P. W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Meller, Sir Richard James
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duggan, Hubert John
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Strestham)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wise, Alfred R.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Morrie-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, William Shephard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Munro, Patrick
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Fremantie, Sir Francis
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nunn, William
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
George Penny.




NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, Charles
Groves, Thomas E.


Banfield, John William
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Grundy, Thomas W.


Cleary, J. J.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Daggar, George
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Hicks, Ernest George




Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Maxton, James
William, David (Swansea, East)


Lawson. John James
Nathan, Major H. L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Leonard, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Wilmot, John


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Thorne, William James



McEntee, Valentine L.
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES




Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PRO CEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1899 AND 1933.

The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 and 1933, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bill should originate in the House of Lords, namely:

Ayr County Water Bill (Substituted Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1934.

CLASS I.

CIVIL SERVICE REMUNERATION, ETC.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, to meet such of the charges for restoration of half the emergency reduction in Ministerial Salaries and Civil Service Remuneration, etc., as have not been otherwise provided (including the arrangements for consolidating the Salaries of Civil Servants).

3.42 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The Committee may wish me to say a few words in explanation of this supplementary estimate, which is in connection with the restoration of the cuts in civil service pay and Ministerial salaries which was decided upon last year. Perhaps it would be as well if I referred, first of all, to the procedure which we are following. Hon. Members will see that we are asking the House to vote £100,000, but that is only a fraction of what this decision has cost. The cost in all is £900,000, of which £562,000 was taken by the Post Office and has already been dealt with in a supplementary estimate for that department. A further £130,000 has been saved in various ways, Departments having restored the cuts out of their own savings. An additional sum of £108,000 has been taken by different departments which have for other reasons had to bring in supplementary estimates, and that has meant that they included restoration of the cuts in those Supplementary estimates. The £100,000 which we are asking for this afternoon covers various departments, and obviously it was desirable from the point of view of the Committee, as well as of the Departments—but particularly of the Committee—that we should include them all in one supplementary estimate, rather than insist upon each department bringing for
ward its own supplementary estimate, which would have delayed the Committee in a very unnecessary manner. I think the present procedure will be agreed upon by all Members of the House as being the more desirable.
Perhaps it would be as well now, in regard to the consolidation of civil service pay, if I were to remind hon. Members in a very few words of the history of the matter. As a result of a report of the National Whitley Council it was decided in 1920 to place the civil service upon a sliding scale in accordance with the cost of living. In those days the cost of living was soaring pretty rapidly, and immediately after the War great uncertainty prevailed as to what it was going to be. That decision was agreed upon by all parties, but it was found not to work satisfactorily, and there has been no division of opinion that it was desirable to have this sliding scale changed to a fixed scale. A Royal Commission inquired into the matter in 1929–1931 and reported in July of 1931. One of its recommendations was that the sliding scale should be changed to a permanent scale which should be based on the cost-of-living figure of 55, which prevailed at the time. In September of the same year many events occurred, as hon. Members will remember, and among them the sliding scale figure fell from 55 to 50. In the normal course of events, in accordance with the sliding scale basis, the cost-of-living figure having fallen, the remuneration would have been reduced by that amount, that is to say down to a figure of 50. That was actually done, but, as was explained at the time by the Prime Minister, it was not done in. the usual way in accordance with the system, but as a special cut in civil service pay based upon the economy needs of the time. It was regarded as a sacrifice, and no other cut was asked of the civil service to meet the financial crisis. It was to be restored.
There were further negotiations between the staff side and the official side, and in 1932 what was called the stabilisation agreement was concluded, by which both sides agreed that the figure of 50 should continue to be the basic rate until 1934. Last year there were again negotiations between the two sides, who failed to reach agreement. The official side put forward the suggestion that the cost-of-living figure of 55 or the recommendations of the
Royal Commission, whichever were more favourable, should be accepted as a future basic rate. The staff side were unable to obtain the necessary majority to accept that suggestion, but it is a fact that there was a majority of the staff side in favour of accepting the proposal. By their constitution the staff side could only accept if they had a majority of two-thirds, or two to one. In that case, the new settlement came into being without their official agreement.
I think the settlement has given general satisfaction. So far as I am aware, there have not been any complaints, and that it has conferred a real benefit upon the civil service is shown by the fact that in a full year its cost to the country is £1,200,000. It is obviously a great improvement upon the old system of the sliding scale on which the civil service would now be receiving remuneration based upon the present cost-of-living figure of 42, instead of 55. The settlement does not in any way debar those who are suffering from what they consider hardships from bringing forward their case to their departments or before the Industrial Court in the ordinary way. The very large number of cases that have been dealt with in that manner during the past nine months is surprising, and a large majority of the cases have been settled entirely satisfactorily from the point of view of the civil service. The benefits of stabilisation are now being enjoyed by the greater part of the civil service. I hope, in the circumstances, that the Committee will have no difficulty in voting the supplementary estimate for which we are asking.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I do so in order to discuss a little more fully and completely what the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to say in his opening remarks. I was rather surprised at the somewhat cursory way in which he dealt with the history of this matter. The hon. Gentleman is a very good historian and I have much enjoyed his writings in regard to past personalities. I anticipate as much enjoyment from his writings in regard to other personalities presently. It is, however, a risky thing to treat history in so cavalier a fashion
as he has done this afternoon. I should like to fill in some of the details which, unfortunately, he has omitted to present. We are asked to agree, as far as this Vote is concerned anyhow, to the consolidation of the salaries of certain civil servants, and this is, perhaps, an appropriate occasion on which to raise the whole issue that is involved in the figures presented to us this afternoon. We cannot, I think, discuss this matter unless we are quite clear as to the principle on which we are to approach the problem. How shall we view this problem as a whole?
I shall probably carry everyone in the Committee with me when I say, for it is a fact, that the Government is one of the biggest employers of labour in the country. It exercises the function of employer on behalf of the people of the country as a whole, and we here are the custodians of the country's interests, not only financially, but in other respects as well. We are obliged, therefore, to examine meticulously any proposal that comes from the Government in its capacity as an employer of labour. I think I carry the Committee with me so far. I would also add, and here again I think the Committee will agree with me, that there is always, in my judgment, a strong claim for the proposition that the Government of the day, which undertakes from time to time the task of introducing legislation governing the labour conditions of other people, should itself be, as far as is possible, a model employer. Therefore, in examining the proposals which are embodied in these figures, we are bound to inquire how far these consolidation proposals reflect the desire of the Government to act in the capacity of a model employer. In order to establish our criticism, it seems to me that we can only compare the attitude of the Government in this matter with the attitude of employers of labour where comparable work is being done; and, in speaking of comparable employment, I mean that I want to compare the Government's attitude, not with the worst employers in comparable trades, but with the best employers in comparable trades. I propose, therefore, to address myself straight away to that point.
I think everyone will agree with me that an employer comparable with the Government in this matter is to be found obviously in the local authorities. They
employ great numbers of people on the administrative side, who do work which is very largely similar to the work done by those in Government offices. What is the history of the action of local authorities in relation to their employés since the crisis which the hon. Gentleman seems to keep so tenaciously in mind? Cuts were imposed by the Government, which are being specially discussed this afternoon; and the same thing was done in—similar cases by local authorities. What have the local authorities done? I have here a return of 1,808 local authorities of various sorts—county councils, county boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, boroughs, urban district councils, and rural district councils—of whom 669 imposed deductions following the governmental circular No. 1222. Of these 669 authorities who imposed cuts, 583, up to the 4th December, 1934, had restored those cuts completely, so that clearly the Government, in advancing these proposals this afternoon, must bear in mind that a large proportion of employers comparable with the Government have fully restored the cuts that were imposed at the beginning of the life of the present National Government. I think, therefore, I can follow my comparison one step further and say that model employers, employing persons doing work comparable with that done for the Government, have already done their best to restore their employés to the position which they enjoyed before the cuts were imposed.
I turn now to the people with whom we are primarily concerned this afternoon. We are asked to agree to certain consolidation proposals; that is to say, if these proposals receive the endorsement of the House, it means that from now onwards the new consolidated figures of salaries will remain until at some future time they may be altered. We are now laying down the basis of salaries for some time to come, and, therefore, it is important that we should keep in our minds all the factors relevant to the act upon which we are now embarking. It is worth while recalling to the Committee what the state of remuneration is in the civil service with respect to very large numbers of people. I am told, by people whose business it is to record figures and facts with regard to this matter, that there are some 35,000 people in the Government service who enjoy—if I may use the word "en
joy" with some apology; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they suffer—a salary of £2 or less per week, and that £2 or less per week includes bonus. There are 183,000 people whose salaries, including bonus, are either £4 or less per week; and there are 249,000 who receive £5 or less per week. All of these figures are inclusive of any bonuses that may be enjoyed.
It is well known to the Committee, and I observe that there are members of the Civil Service Committee present in this Chamber at the moment, that these salaries are based upon two factors, namely, the basic rate and what is called the cost-of-living bonus. As the hon. Gentleman quite rightly said at the beginning, the use of these two factors together was established as a result of agreement in 1920. One of the complaints entertained, quite properly as I think, in the civil service, is that full compensation in respect of the cost-of-living figure is only granted to people who receive a certain basic wage. I think I am right in saying that only people with a basic wage up to £91 5s. per year enjoy the full compensation. People whose basic rate is between £91 5s. and £200 a year enjoy, I think, half compensation, and those whose pay is beyond that up to £400 a year get one-third compensation.
It is important to make that point, because I am sure the Committee will agree with me that whatever be the argument in relation to the rightness or wrongness, the fitness or otherwise, of applying the cost of living figure to other people—and I myself am not accepting it; quite frankly I do not accept the reliability of the Ministry of Labour index figure as being entirely applicable even to working class people; that is my own view, and I dare say it is the view of many of my friends as well—I am quite sure that it is sadly out of joint when it is applied to certain grades of people to whose case I will address myself for a minute or two. The people receiving between £91 5s. and, say, £400 per year are what we call the lower middle class people. The application of the cost-of-living index figure to them seems unjust from many points of view. This cost-of-living figure, after all, was fixed as long ago as 1904, and in those days, 10 years pre-war, it was fixed in relation to conditions which are entirely inapplicable in
post-war days. But in those days the figure was based upon this consideration. There was some 60 per cent. allotted in respect of food, some 12 per cent, in respect of clothing, some 16 per cent. in respect of rent and 8 per cent. in respect of fuel, leaving only 4 per cent. for everything else.
I say that this is inappropriate in relation to the people which whom I am concerned, namely, those between £90 odd and £400 a year. The items I have cited leave out of account many items with which those people within that particular area of salary must be confronted. For instance, everyone in this House knows that the mass of civil servants undertake a heavy responsibility, let us say, in regard to mortgages in respect of the houses they occupy, and then, of course, they get, inevitably, house repair expenses. Then there are school fees, and let the Committee remember that this Government has taken steps to see to it that above a certain region of salary school fees must be paid, and these people cannot very well escape them. Then, of course, there are doctors' fees and similar expenses, which are not inconsiderable, as I have reason to know, in London. They are very serious, especially if there is very prolonged ill-health in the family. It is a. very serious item indeed in the salary of people of this sort. Then there is another not inconsiderable item. The more London straggles out—I am speaking particularly of London—the more onerous does the task of paying for transport backward and forward become for these people. I am not sure that I am very far wrong if I say that many of these people must be spending out of their very meagre salary something round about 10s. a week in order to get to and from their work. Those elements were entirely outside the purview of those who fixed the basis of the cost-of-living figure in 1904. Therefore, to forget it now, when we are taking steps to consolidate, is, in my judgment, a grievous wrong to people who are mulcted in these very serious expenses.
Let me add another observation on a matter which is very important. Apart altogether from the mere question of paying for one's house, and so on, there is the question of rent, which is very meagrely provided for in the cost-of living figure. I have got some figures which I have had presented to me in
relation to rents. For instance, there is a body called the Society of Civil Servants. They took a, referendum among their members. I believe they sent out 1,441 forms to individual members, and they got a 92 per cent. return, so that they have a fairly good picture of what precisely happens to their members in respect of the rent item. They say that of the 1,441 forms sent out, 983 were returned from those who are owner-occupiers. I, myself, am a small owner-occupier, and I know something of what this item means on the modest salary of a Member of Parliament. I know what a struggle it involves, and I can express my deep sympathy with those people who are trying to pay for their houses on their very limited and moderate salaries. There are 983 of them struggling to pay their mortgages, I take it, upon their houses. Take another group—those who have rented houses or bungalows unfurnished. There are 49 of them in controlled houses, 56 in decontrolled houses, where their rents may go sky-high without any sort of control, and 51 in new houses which have never been controlled. Those are people living in houses. Then there are the people living in flats. But I will not weary the Committee with more figures. I have indicated sufficient to show that in dealing with this element of rent we are dealing with a problem which is very real to the people of whom the hon. Gentleman speaks, for whom I am trying to plead and in respect of whom this item plays a very important part in their week-by-week or year-by-year salaries.
I say that to consolidate salaries upon a cost-of-living figure as a basic salary which does not take adequate cognisance of this item in their budget ought not to be entertained by this House. If we are going to consolidate, we must clearly consolidate on conditions which are fairly equitable. The hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the Government proposed to stabilise at something like 52½ points when the cost-of-living figure actually is something round about 40. The fact that the Government are stabilising at the moment at 52½, and the cost-of-living figure is 40, in itself indicates that the Government themselves cannot accept the index figure of 40 as an adequate basis. But, apart from that, I want to say to the hon. Gentleman that stabilisation at 
52½, now, and 55 as it will be later, does nothing at all for the people of whom I have spoken, more particularly in the last few minutes.
In point of fact, when Mr. Snowden was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1929, I think it was, he recognised that even if the bonus fell below 70 points, it would produce very acute and very chronic hardship in the civil service. In order to avoid it he actually—I put it in my own way—underpinned—if I may use the expression—the bonus at the higher figure than that which was warranted by the index figure itself, and he did it simply because he knew that the conditions of the civil service would not merit being brought below the figure he had in mind at that time. It is true to say that in March, 1931, he reduced it by ten points, and it was reduced by the National Government another five points in September. But the Committee must remember that those two cuts were cuts imposed not because the salaries were excessive but they were imposed deliberately and specifically in the interests of economy. When, therefore, you restore the five points you are not entitled to regard it as a final contribution in the matter of stabilisation of the salaries of these people.
I venture to tell the hon. Gentleman that his historical survey was somewhat cursory in character. He jumped somewhat gaily from 1920 to 1931, and so jumped over 22 steps. In the interregnum between 1920 and 1931 the civil servants, I understand, have suffered 22 cuts, the 1931 cut making the 23rd. To-day actually you are restoring just the 1931 cut—half of it now—and you are doing for the £91 5s. to £400 people practically nothing else. I have had from those whose business it is to study this matter an analysis of what this consolidation actually means. I want to be perfectly clear. I am speaking now of the effect of the consolidation, disregarding, as I am entitled to disregard, the cuts, for the restoration of the cuts is to apply to all classes who were cut in 1931. Teachers, policemen, all enjoy that, and ought to enjoy it just as the direct taxpayer got his cut restored last April. Therefore, I am entitled to exclude that factor.
If you exclude that consideration, the actual effect of the weekly advantage to these people in respect of this consolidation is something like this: Those who have a basic rate per week of 15s. will get the advantage of an extra 4d.; those who have 20s. will get 6d.; 25s., 51d.; 30s., 6d.; 35s., 5d.; 40s., 3d.; 45s., 2d.; 50s., ½d. I can only express the hope that they will not become spendthrifts as a consequence. This is a stage in the utter demoralisation, I have no doubt, of the civil service. It is denied, I believe, by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I know it is argued by the Treasury that actually the increase will be round about and is. 4d. If you like, I will give the concession. Granted that it is 1s. 4d., they cannot become wildly extravagant even on that. But leaving that out, the actual increase through the consolidation ranges between ½d. and 6d. per week. The Government really ought not to do so mean a thing as to consolidate at this particular stage of the life of these people. You are now consolidating after imposing 23 cuts. It is unfair; it is unjust. If you want to treat your civil servants on the same basis as other people, by all means do so, but you will not do it by consolidating at the time that is most convenient to the Government and most inconvenient to the people. You are consolidating really at the lowest ebb of their salaries. I think these people have a just complaint. Of course, there is something to be said for the principle of consolidation 'at the appropriate time, but I am surprised that the Government should be consolidating now if they want to do the best for their people. Are we not on the upgrade? Are not things improving? Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer say on Friday at Bradford that we were going ahead enormously; we were getting on here and turning a corner there? We have turned no end of corners; we are doing so remarkably well. Have you not confidence in what you yourselves are saying? If so, why consolidate the salaries of these people at the most inconvenient time for them.
The hon. Gentleman said quite rightly that, even if consolidation goes through, it is still possible for separate grades to approach the Government for an improvement of their scale of remuneration. I do not deny it, but what consolidation is that? Does that imply that all these
various grades—I believe there are from 300 to 400 of them—are to approach the Government separately, and, if you are going to grant them all, why not make a substantial change in the situation for all grades at the same time? If you do not, you may have from 300 to 400 separate appeals and from 300 to 400 separate replies, and you will divide the whole civil service into competing grades, perhaps mutually jealous grades, simply because one grade has been granted a concession and another has not. It is not fair of the Government to take that line for another reason. From 1920 to the present they have always regarded this bonus business as one issue. It has not been a different issue for one grade of people from another, but the bonus has been applied all the way round, and the restoration should be all the way round too. You have no right to treat them differently when you come to consolidation when you are going up from the way you treat them when you come down in the scale of salaries. The Government, therefore, are not doing the just thing, it seems to me, when they treat them in this somewhat cavalier fashion.
Everyone in the Committee believes that those in the employ of the Government should be properly and suitably remunerated. We believe that the Government should be a model employer, a leader among employers, particularly those who employ people doing comparable work. It is bad for the Government to have a discontented service. I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he had heard no complaints. Perhaps he is so deeply occupied otherwise that he has no time to put his ears to the ground to listen to approaching complainants. Anway we have heard them. It is in a way technically true that, when the consolidation proposals were made by the Government, there was a bare majority in favour, but only in this sense. I am sure I speak with due authority when I say that those who accepted it, even the bare majority, did not thereby imply that they accepted the principles on which consolidation was based. I know that there were more reasons of tactics than of principle. There were those who felt that, if for the present they accepted this, they might be able to negotiate wage settlements later a little more easily. From the point of
view of the principle of the acceptance of this consolidation I am told that all who are authorised to speak on behalf of the organised civil service agree that the principles of this consolidation are unacceptable. I am extremely sorry to hear the Government remaining adamant in the matter, and to register our disapproval of this arrangement, I have moved the reduction in the Vote.

4.22 p.m.

Sir ERNEST GRAHAM-LITTLE: I want to make one or two points to explain the position of civil servants in the face of this proposal for consolidation. The hon. Gentleman has given, I think, a very accurate and moving picture of what the civil service is suffering in present conditions. One of the points made for the proposal of consolidation is that the 1920 agreement was accepted by both sides of the Whitley Council, but that acceptance was for a temporary and not a permanent arrangement, and it is extremely disappointing to our great civil service that during the interval between 1920 and 1931, instead of improvements, they have had something like 22 or 23 cuts, and, when the opportunity comes for making a more permanent settlement, it has been taken, not to get an agreement, which perhaps may have been impossible, but to impose a settlement by administrative action upon a very large body of servants of the Government. Dissatisfaction inside the service is clear to anyone who has eyes to see or ears to hear, and that dissatisfaction is very fully justified by the figures we have had and by the representations that have been made from time to time to Members by their constituents. The service view, in short, is that the arrangements now proposed are not satisfactory as a permanent settlement and that the cuts in wages which have been suffered in these long years have represented a sacrifice quite out of proportion to that made by any other section of the community.
The inadequate nature of the improvement which the consolidation scheme claims to have effected may be gauged from the fact that increases of pay are limited to from ½d. to 6d. per week. I should like to see the face of an employé of mine who came to me and said he was inadequately paid and I said, "I will raise you by a halfpenny a week." The statement has been made that the bare majority in the vote of the Whitley
Council really means that the majority of the civil service are satisfied with the position. I am given to understand that the vote was largely determined by the expectation that, if they agreed to that consolidation, they would have the opportunity of discussing claims in the future. The reasons why the service is dissatisfied with the scheme are set out under four headings. It does nothing to ameliorate chronic and acute underpayment. It ignores the unreliability of the index figure and its applicability in these conditions. It continues the present limitation of full compensation, even on the basis of those. very meagre figures, to the first 35s. per week of salary. The fourth objection is that the scheme does nothing to remedy the disproportionately heavy fall in civil service levels of pay by comparison with wage levels in the community generally and among other sections of the State's employés. One is entitled to ask that, when the settlement is represented as being one for a considerable time, another endeavour should be made to get agreement and the arrangements which are very distasteful, and I submit not unjustifiably distasteful, should not be forced upon a section of servants of the Government.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I want to support what I take is the appeal that is being made to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for some reconsideration of this consolidation scheme. Speaking as a very old trade union leader who has negotiated some hundreds, if not thousands, of agreements during the last 20 years, I and the people whom I speak for would not have agreed to all these cuts in any circumstances, but I suppose the civil servants are in a rather different category. Their position is awkward. The right to strike is apparently one of the things not talked about or even thought of. I do not think that those who, by the very nature of their service, give extraordinary loyal service to the country, who are necessarily dependent upon the justice of their case as it appears to those who are their employers, should be left in a far worse position simply because they are not in a position to use the strike weapon if need be. They deserve far more consideration. I do not know what would happen to some of my trade union friends if they went to their members and said,
"The best we have been able to get out of the employers is that you may, if you are lucky, get half the cut restored, plus, may be, 6d. a week or, in some cases, even a halfpenny a week." It seems so extremely small to come to the House and say, "We could not get agreement with those concerned. We have not satisfied the people who give so loyal and efficient service, and those who represent them, but we feel that this is as far as we are prepared to go." To say, "We have imposed this settlement and want the House of Commons to ratify it," is asking far too much.
The Committee should realise that they are the supreme authority so far as the civil service is concerned. Hon. and right hon. Members get up in this House from time to time and pay tributes to the civil service, declare that the British civil service is the finest in the world—probably there is a great deal of justification for that view—and bear testimony to its authority and so on, but I am astonished when I make inquiries among thousands of civil servants to find the extraordinarily low wages that are paid. The payment of high salaries to a certain few is no justification for paying far too low a salary to the great mass of the people in the civil service. We have every justification for criticising this consolidation scheme and for saying to the Government that surely this cannot be the last word and also, on behalf of those representing the civil servants, that they cannot recognise it as the last word, and that this cannot be a final settlement of the matter at all.
Something has been said about the cost-of-living scale. It is a thousand pities that wages based upon the cost-of-living scale and that any agreements based on that scale were not done away with long ago. The 1904 basis of the cost-of-living scale is absolutely out-of-date. Everybody recognises that since 1904 circumstances have changed, that rents are considerably higher, and that all sorts of circumstances which at that time were probably quite proper are now no use at all in regulating salaries and wages. In my own negotiations I have been successful all over the country in getting employers to drop what we term. the "fodder" basis for wages. We say, "Take out the cost-of-living scale altogether. Here are certain sets of circumstances, increases in rent and in
food and generally all the way round, let us fix wages in relation to present day circumstances. Do not. let us fix a wage or salary which may go down a shilling or two at one time or go up a shilling or two at another time, but stabilise the whole thing, irrespective of the cost-of-living figures, for two or three years, and then, if either side is dissatisfied, they can come back and enter into fresh negotiations."
I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the consolidation scheme based upon the cost-of-living figure, which is obsolete and out-of-date and gives so little advantage. There are people in the civil service receiving salaries of only £130 a, year. It may be that they are not all married men with families—at least I hope not—but really it is an extraordinarily low figure. Many of the salaries paid in the civil service astonish skilled workmen and craftsmen, who would not be expected to work for anything like such small wages. The efficiency and intelligence required from the civil servants justify a considerably better and higher standard of living. Some of us have had experience in this matter in connection with local government. I do not think that on the whole the Ministry of Health or any Government Department can complain that local authorities are extraordinarily extravagant as far as local officials are concerned. Local authorities attempt to deal with the matter in what they think is the right way, by taking into consideration the work which their staff have to do, and, on the other hand, the ratepayers who have to find the money with which to pay their salaries. There is far more satisfaction in local government circles as far as local authorities are concerned than there is among civil servants.
It has been said that the Government who employ a tremendous number of people should be model employers. There is an old joke about the man who claimed to be a model husband. His wife looked up the dictionary to find out what the word "model" meant and found that it meant an imitation of the real thing. I do not know whether or not the Government were to be referred to as model employers in that sense, but surely they should recognise that, in their treatment of the civil servants, the country expects
them to deal fairly and squarely as between the civil servants and those who find the money. The nation as a, whole expects a square deal. The joke about the civil service is that the vast majority of people think that if a man has a job in the civil service he is there for life and is all right, because, they say, "He has got a Government job." Some of these Government jobs would not be touched with the end of a long pole by workmen and craftsmen or even by labourers in many instances. The case for reconsideration of the scheme has been made out on the figures produced and on the ground that the Government should set a decent example to other employers throughout the country. I do not say Government employés should necessarily expect to be treated better than the best employers are prepared to treat their workpeople, but they should be treated as well and as fairly. It must be within the knowledge of those concerned that the proposed consolidation scheme satisfies nobody and that it will not be the end of the discontent, which will rear its head again, and quite rightly, because if those people do not keep on kicking sure enough they will not get anything at all.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman opposite to say, "I have heard no complaint, and as far as I know the people are satisfied." He is not likely to hear complaints. People do not go down to Whitehall and state their complaints to the hon. Gentleman. But if it were possible for those who advise the hon. Gentleman to go among the rank and file of the civil servants, he would realise that there was a great deal of complaint, and that when men open their minds and hearts to him there was really serious ground for complaint. I have said to employers, and I will say it to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, that a contented staff is a very great asset indeed to everybody concerned. It is an asset to an employer, and to the Government if they are the employer. It means that you get far better and more efficient work, and a thing that is very desirable and should be encouraged. Surely, in the year 1935 the time has come when the remuneration of civil servants should be put upon a scale which would be satisfactory for some years to come at any rate. This is an attempt to put them on. a scale, but it should
be a satisfactory scale. It does not give satisfaction, and, in fact, hardly even does justice either to the Government, on the one band, or to representatives of the Government like the hon. Gentleman opposite who has come here to put this scheme before the Committee. I hope that sufficient will be said—I do not think that it is confined to these benches—from all quarters of the Committee to enable the hon. Gentleman to go back to his department and see whether it is not possible to get a far more satisfactory scheme and one that will bring content to those employed in the civil service.

4.41 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: The very small Committee this afternoon shows that the average Member of this House does not really appreciate the issue at stake. The general impression of this particular Vote is that here is £100,000 going to members of the civil service, and in these hard times people are not inclined to scrutinise this figure very much. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary is an example to other Ministers from the point of view that he is always brief and never embellishes his speeches with unnecessary adjectives, but in his very short speech he pointed out to the Committee that the sum of £100,000 comprised in this Vote is for two definite purposes. The first—a very gratifying thing—is to restore, what was foreshadowed in the last Finance Bill, half the emergency reductions made in the autumn of 1931. Sandwiched in with that is quite another story—the very much larger issue of the consolidation of the arrangements made generally for a permanent scale for the civil service. That raises a very much bigger issue, and I am informed that the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) dealt with that matter in great detail. Although there are some grades of civil servants who are satisfied, scattered here and there and mixed up between all these various grades are a large number of hard-working, intelligent and well-educated people whose salaries are quite insufficient for the position and status they have to keep up as the black-coated workmen carrying on the civil organisation of this country.
The very fact that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) intervened in the
discussion accentuates the position. Why does he intervene? I do not say that his heart is not large enough to include all the members of society, but he always intervenes, naturally, on behalf of those men and women who have gone to the expense, time and trouble of getting a university education. It will come as a surprise to many Members of the Committee to find that there are hundreds of well-educated people who have had the advantage of matriculating and going through a university course and taking a degree who, compared with persons in local government organisations, are very insufficiently paid. It is a very significant thing, and it is perhaps known to a few Members of the Committee, that members of the civil service are now being recruited by organisations like the London County Council and local authorities because of their higher grade of salaries. We naturally speak of being proud of our civil service as being the finest in the world. It has esprit de corps and tradition. Yet the middle grade section—not the men who have reached the very top and been through the higher civil service examinations—but the middle grades who are university men, still have very moderate salaries. It would be unfortunate that a supplementary estimate dealing with the restoration of cuts, which is quite another question, should be made an excuse to consolidate at 55 per cent. the pay of this great body of public servants. It would be unfortunate, after the very meagre speech of the Financial Secretary and after the very meagre information we have at our disposal, that we should come to that conclusion. We do not want this to be the last word. These people are patient, long-enduring members of society. They are not very vocal, and it is not in the interests of society that civil servants should be vocal. It is our tradition that they should be seen and not heard, and because they are so patient and so little vocal we have the greater responsibility in protecting their interests. I hope that the Committee will feel that we are particularly responsible and that what is being offered does not really meet their very substantial claims. It does not meet their claims. It is merely restoring to them, along with the teachers and the other employés of the State in local authorities, the cuts made
in 1931 in a national emergency, and does not touch the larger question of the bigger claims for pay as civil servants.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: With the Committee's permission—I cannot speak again without it—

Sir P. HARRIS: Yes, you can.

Mr. COOPER: I will say a few words in reply to the eloquent pleas to which I have listened from Members belonging to the three parties. I have nothing to complain about in regard to anything that has been said, that it was unfair and that it does not represent the facts, except that I do not think it is correct to maintain that there have been 22 cuts since the agreement ' was come to, that is, the last agreement which was come to as completely satisfactory by both sides. These so-called cuts were reductions following upon the terms of that agreement, owing to the sudden, rapid and extreme fall in the cost of living. Every one of those cuts was accepted before it was made, and it is not fair, therefore, to say that there have been 22 cuts. The hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) expatiated on certain cases where the restoration of the cuts of three years ago means only 6d. a week, or even smaller sums. It is always easy on these occasions to say that the restoration of pay or improvements in the conditions of work mean improvements in a very small degree. But those arguments cut both ways.
We were told when the cuts were imposed that they we-re inflicting terrible hardship upon everybody. We now learn that to many people they meant only a reduction of one halfpenny a week. When cuts are imposed hon. Members must not always cry out so loudly about the hardships and then when the cut is restored sneer so indignantly because the restoration means so little. They cannot have it both ways. There is a large basis of agreement in the Committee. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Ban-field) was very eloquent about the undesirability of maintaining a sliding scale of the cost of living. He wants us to get rid of it and settle down to something permanent. That is exactly what we are doing. Although I was very glad to hear his eloquence, because it supported the scheme which we are putting
before the Committee, it does not carry us any further. We are all in favour of consolidation. The question is whether we should do it now. The hon. Baronet the Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) and the hon. Member for London University seemed to think that this is not the time to do it, but from the point of view of the civil servant surely this is the time to do it, because the cost of living is still falling, and it may not rise. I see no sign of it rising in the near future. Under the old system the pay would go down with the cost of living. Therefore, the Government cannot be accused of avarice in selecting this time for consolidating pay. Everybody is really agreed that the sooner there is consolidation the better.
Hon. Members have maintained that the pay should be a little higher. It has been alleged that we are not showing ourselves to be model employers, and that we do not bear comparison with the best of private employers. There has not been one single jot of evidence produced by any single speaker in support of that statement. I am always interested to hear any such evidence. I have had to deal with Whitley Councils in another department, and I have heard this accusation often brought forward, but I have never found any satisfactory evidence on behalf of it. I would remind the Committee that we are to-day consolidating civil service pay on the basis recommended by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission was set up by the Labour Government, and it reported while that party was still in office. Therefore, it should have been a commission which included their view. The Commission reported:
After weighing the evidence we are satisfied that the present standard of remuneration of civil servants is reasonable in the light of the wage levels now prevailing"—
so much, for the allegation that we are underpaying the civil service—
and calls for no substantial revision.
Since that day the cost of living has fallen from 55, at which it stood when the Royal Commission reported, to 42. We are disregarding entirely that fall and are consolidating on the cost of living at the rate which the Royal Commission advised in 1931. While I sympathise with all hon. Members who ask for higher wages for anybody, civil ser
vants or anybody else, I do not think that they have a very powerful case this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN: This is a point at which I might intervene. I do not think that I can make any complaint of the brief references that have been made to the pay of civil servants, and equally I cannot make any objection to the Financial Secretary replying to them, but we cannot discuss at length the basic pay of civil servants on this supplementary estimate dealing with consolidation of cost-of-living bonuses.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: I do not think this matter ought to be entirely disposed of without asking the Financial Secretary to consider again at least one statement which he made in his second speech. If it were left as it stands, it might create a very serious misconception of the position, at any rate as I see it. He argued, if I understood him aright, that it was foolish for civil servants to bring forward the case that the effect of the consolidation is to give an increase in the majority of cases of something between ½d and 6d. a week. He said that if it were true that this arrangement is only giving that small amount back, then hon. Members were wrong in complaining of the previous cuts, because obviously those cuts were just as small and insignificant as the restoration. I submit that that is not the fact. The halfpenny rise which the fortunate civil servant is going to get as a result of this long discussion and cogitation on consolidation is not the restoration of the cuts that he suffered, but merely the amount which is going to be added to his pay by reason of this consolidation agreement. That is quite a different thing. If the Financial Secretary would again treat the Committee to another of his somewhat terse orations, it would be just as well for him to say that the impression which he created was not in accordance with the facts. The real trouble with this business is that the civil service expected, and I think it had every reason and right to expect, that this question of civil service pay would be considered in its broadest aspects.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now coming to the point which I said could not be discussed.

Mr. WILMOT: I am most anxious to keep within the rules of order, but, as I see it, and I should be glad of your guidance, this consolidation is a consolidation of the bonus. The bonus was added to the salaries and wages, and alterations have been made from time to time ever since the War. The intention of the agreement is to consolidate all these things into a permanent settlement. I submit that in these circumstances it would not be out of order to discuss any of the factors which enter into the consolidation.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot agree with the hon. Member. This is a consolidation in order to get rid of certain bonuses which were being paid in connection with and on a sliding scale calculated according to increases or decreases in the cost of living.

Mr. WILMOT: I will endeavour to keep within your Ruling. The case put forward by the staff side in the negotiations was, I think the Financial Secretary will agree, the case for an improvement in civil service pay. They felt that this long-awaited consolidation was an opportunity for achieving that end, in consolidating these various factors in remuneration, but, so far from that being the case, the Government have shown themselves to be the meanest of all public employers in dealing with a like problem. Not only have the Government been meaner than any of the local authorities or equivalent employers, but they have singled out the civil servant for the harshest treatment of any Government employé. The Financial Secretary might explain why it is that the police, the teachers, the Navy and the Army have all been treated more liberally in this respect than the civil service itself. He might also explain why it is that the local government authorities, with resources more slender than the resources at the disposal of the Government, have consolidated their employés' remuneration on the figure of 80, whereas the Government have consolidated at the very much smaller figure of 55.
These things seems to me to go to the very root of the matter, and it is idle for the Financial Secretary to presume or pretend that the civil service accepts this settlement with open arms and with satisfaction. It would be true to say that never since the War has the civil service been so dissatisfied with the position as it is to-day. They feel that this settlement, which has been so long awaited, has been forced upon them without the slightest justification, and without an adequate case being made. The civil service has a right to have its case heard. I submit with all respect

that it has a, right to expect that the Minister in submitting the supplementary estimate would at least explain why it is that what appear to many hon. Members to be just and proper demands have been brushed on one side And the service has been forced to accept a dictated settlement.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £99,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 191.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
[5.1 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Hail, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Bernays. Robert
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Paling, Wilfred


Cleary, J. J.
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks. Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Walter Russell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hoidsworth, Herbert
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Daggar, George
Janner, Barnett
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt, Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Liddall, Walter S.
Wilmot, John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooke, Douglas
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cooper, A. Duff
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Henderson. Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Apsley, Lord
Cranborne, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Assheton, Ralph
Crooke, J. Smedley
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Ma).Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Ker, J. Campbell


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Denville, Alfred
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Dickie, John P.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Donner, P. W.
Knight. Holford


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Knox, Sir Alfred


Blindell, James
Duggan, Hubert John
Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton


Boulton, W. W.
Duncan, James A, L. (Kensington, N.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon, Anthony
Leckie, J. A.


Boyce, H, Leslie
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Levy, Thomas


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fermoy, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Buchan, John
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Burnett, John George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Glossop, C. W. H.
Loder, Captain J, de Vere


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Maitland, Adam


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grigg, Sir Edward
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hanbury, Cecil
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meller, Sir Richard James


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Conant, R. J. E.
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Remer, John R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Rickards, George William
Storey, Samuel


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Morrison, William Shepherd
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Taylor, Vice-AdmiralE.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Muirhead, Lieut. Colonel A. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Munro, Patrick
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Nunn, William
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Orr Ewing, I, L.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wayland, Sir William A.


Peat, Charles U.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Weymouth, Viscount


Penny, Sir George
Savery, Samuel Servington
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Percy, Lord Eustace
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Perkins, Walter R, D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertl'd)


Petherick, M.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv.,Belfast)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pike, Cecil F.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Soper, Richard
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.



Reed, David D. (County Down)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £73,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including Grants and Grants-in-Aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and Grants, Grants-in-Aid, loans and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, etc., of live stock, land settlement, cultivation, improvement, drainage, etc., regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, co-operation, and marketing, fishery development; also for loans for the purchase of herring drift nets and assistance in respect of expenditure on fitting-out herring drifters; and sundry other services.

5.10 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): This supplementary estimate for £73,000 has been rendered necessary owing to the recrudescence of foot-and-mouth disease. It is also submitted in order that formal authority may be given for the inclusion under the head of the Fisheries Department of sundry expenses and receipts under the Whaling Industry Act, 1934. That is a new service. Except for this variation in expenditure the receipts of all the subheads which they cover would have shown a net saving. The original provision of £35,000 for foot-and-mouth dis
ease is an arbitrary figure which is provided each year in respect of this service. Any substantial recrudescence of the disease in any year involves an expenditure largely in excess of that amount. A sum of £120,000 is included in the supplementary estimate for this purpose. During a single financial year in the past the expenditure has varied from £19,000 to a sum on one occasion of over £3,000,000. I do not think it is necessary to go further into the matter, but, if any hon. Member desires more information, I shall be ready to give it in my reply. The cause of foot-and-mouth disease is a little obscure. All we can do is to watch most carefully and stamp it out most vigorously wherever it appears; and to carry on with research for the purpose of discovering if we can the fundamental cause of the disease. All these matters are now being carried out.
The new provision necessitated by the passing of the Whaling Industry Act, 1934, comes under Sub-heads P 1 and P 2 of the Fisheries Department. This does not involve the nation in any expenditure since the sums paid out are more than covered by the receipts. It is interesting to note that this service, which carries out the convention signed at Geneva as long ago as 1931, has owing to the difficulty of finding a responsible department been hung up until 1934. It is run largely in conjunction with the Board of Trade. It means that I, as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, have to explain and be responsible for a service covering whaling in the Antarctic, involving log books printed in English
and Norwegian and a survey of ships which for many months in the year touch no land at all.
It is a good thing that the convention was signed, and we should do our utmost to see that it is observed. But the slaughter of these gigantic creatures has reached tremendous and, I think, unfair limits. More than 20,000 whales for instance may be slaughtered in a single season, and no respect is being paid to breeding stock or an economic use of the carcases secured. There was, and indeed still is, a serious danger of the extermination of these creatures altogether. I do not think that the extermination of any species of living creature is a worthy object of humanity, and it is very desirable that any action we can take should be devoted to preserving the breeding stock of animals or creatures which are in themselves harmless and may be made very useful to trade and industry.
When I said that the extermination of any species is not a worthy object, I was perhaps speaking too hastily, for under another sub-head of savings will be found savings of some thousands of pounds on account of the dealings of the Ministry with the Colorado beetle. The supplementary estimate runs from whales, the most gigantic of living things, to these beetles, which were found squashed under wood by a Ministry inspector at Tilbury Dock. I do not wish to enlarge on the extremely interesting story of the discovery of this infestation of the Colorado beetle and its stamping out by the skill of the Ministry's staff, with the co-operation of the public and of the local members of the National Farmers' Union, but it was a feat in protective entomology which has very few rivals in the history of that service, as far as I have been able to find from the records. It has been a remarkable achievement of protection, by scientific service, against a pest which might have devastated great regions in this country, and all credit is due to those in the civil service and to members of the public who co-operated, for the action taken, so far as we- can see, has enabled us to proclaim a. clean bill of health for this country in respect of the dreaded pest of the beetle.
There are several other sub-heads. There is one which will no doubt bring joy to almost every member of the Committee, an expenditure which arises from
the fact that farmers are repaying more swiftly than was anticipated loans to the Public Works Loans Commissioners, that is loans under the Agricultural Credits Act which come back to the Public Works Loans Commissioners. The Treasury allowed the premature repayment of such loans, and they have increased considerably during the last few years. There is a decrease in the provision for land drainage grants owing to the fact that many schemes have been put forward on a loan basis instead of a grant basis, and that one or two important schemes have been deferred. There is a decrease of £21,500 in the agricultural education grant. I am happy to say that it is merely an apparent decrease. It is due to an exceptionally wet month, with the result that the building of the Royal Veterinary College proceeded more slowly than was anticipated. But, of course, the sum originally budgeted for will be required in the long run.
Those are the main heads. One word upon the saving of £2,800 for the Market Supply Committee. That is due to the great public spirit of Lord Linlithgow, who served for seven months without any remuneration at all, on the ground that being largely occupied with the India Committee it would be impossible for him to give as much attention as he would have desired to the Committee; and when he took up a salary for the post he took it up at a rate lower than that provided by the fund. I would pay tribute to the public spirit of which, in this and many other things, I as a Minister have had to take advantage, in the case of people, very busy and overworked, who have given time and trouble to public work without grudge. There is a small item relating to the fitting out of herring drifters which is a little lower than was expected, though the service in respect of the provision of nets is a little higher than was expected. These are the ordinary work of administration, which in some items are less and in some items more. As I have said, the fundamental reason for this supplementary estimate is the larger expenditure on foot-and-mouth disease. That, of course, is an act of God against which no provision can be made.

5.22 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
In the first place I would like to associate myself with what the Minister has said in congratulating an efficient staff upon the progress in stopping an invasion of the Colorado beetle. I remember well that when I was at the Ministry we had to schedule an increased area in France from which importations were prohibited, owing to the rapid extension of this pest, and I am sure we must all be congratulated that, so far anyhow, though the danger is ever present, the beetle has not found a lodging in this country and has been so successfully dealt with by the Department and others concerned. On the point of the increased expenditure on foot-and-mouth disease I am sure that no one feels more than the Minister that it is a complete discredit to this country that we have not got beyond the present barbaric methods of dealing with the disease. It is a tragic thing that a man may have spent a lifetime of infinite care and labour in getting together a fine herd, and that when there is the accident of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease he has to witness the horrible spectacle of all his lifework being made into a bonfire. It is a terrible condemnation. I am not upbraiding the Minister because he has to make this expenditure. It is the law, and this is the best that can be done at present.
But there is no allowance here for one thing. I find from reports that have reached me that in some districts a considerable number of skilled agricultural workers have been thrown out of employment because of the recent epidemic-, and I would ask the Minister to be good enough to make particular inquiries into these cases. We ought to do something special for these highly skilled men who lose their life's work. In relation to this subject I have studied some documents, including the report of the Agricultural Research Council, which was issued as a Parliamentary paper a short time ago. Apropos of that, I notice a serious diminution in a number of heads shown on page 12 of this report, and it is about that that I would like to say something. I see that the Agricultural Research Council discussed the fact that hitherto although, in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, there has been a special provision for research within limits for the past eight
years, we have not hitherto made any real gain; and they go on to make this emphatic observation:
The saving of expense to the country"—
that is by continuing expenditure on a proper scale for the elimination and prevention of foot-and-mouth disease—
would be so large as to compensate for the additional expenditure upon continuing the investigation even over a long term of years.
I ask the House to turn to the contrast shown in this estimate. There is an item of £132,000, of which £120,000 is for compensating people whose animals have been burned, and on the other side you see a saving on the agricultural research grant of £5,650. I know what it is, and I am not going to blame the Minister. Of course, he is the head of the Department and has to take the blame. But it is the Treasury. This is the hand of the Treasury on the Department. I remember the struggle I had with Lord Snowden to get an additional £100,000 for agricultural education. The first thing that happened when this enlightened Government came in was that it cut most of that expenditure off and the increased grant for research suffered the same fate. In this connection I see that reference is made to the delay in the completion of the Royal Veterinary College. It was discreditable enough in all conscience that the nation allowed this vital institution to get into the state in which it was. When I come to look at this matter further it appears that the real reason why there is a saving of £20,000, or whatever it is, this year, is that owing to the economy campaign the grant of £150,000 for which I obtained sanction from Lord Snowden has been split up and advanced in pieces. That is why the building is not any further forward; it is the result of the economy campaign.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee to some of the terrible risks we are running by our serious neglect of this vital matter. I do not think it is a matter for congratulation that we can show these savings in agricultural research and education. It is a disgrace. Here is one disease alone for which we are asked to find £120,000 to-day. Then take swine fever. For that the amount is £10,000. Turning to the account of the Agricultural Research Council to see how
this money has been spent or what is required, I see they say that there should be extensions of the research and investigation service at the different colleges, and that in addition there should be an investigator who would devote his whole time to swine fever. Not one of those things has been done, and we are sacrificing £10,000, not so much on people whose pigs nave been burned, whilst we are refusing to allow the small increased expenditure of one-tenth of that amount on the work the Research Council recommends.
Possibly the worst part of the story which is placed on record here is in regard to agricultural education, and I hope that those who are interested in that subject will obtain the valuable and interesting report to which I have referred. One finds from reading it that the hand of the Treasury is over all this business from start to finish. The number of research scholarships, for instance, is trivial. These scholarships were designed to enable promising lads or young women to be trained at our higher institutions for research work. We find that only five of these scholarships have been provided—a paltry figure for a great country like this. It is owing to the economy campaign that they have had to be curtailed. We are told that we cannot afford even five.
It is true that there appears to have been, shall I say some repentance, in connection with this matter owing perhaps to the representations of the Agricultural Research Council because I see that out of their own limited resources they provided two in 1932. I suppose that they were so ashamed of the shabbiness of the Government that although they had only £6,000 at their disposal, they provided these scholarships out of their own funds. I ask the Committee to note these figures. The Agricultural Research Council got £5,000 in 1931–1932 and they got £6,000, with an additional £2,000, in 1933. Yet owing to the smallness of the advance which we have been able to make in research, we are this afternoon voting no less than £132,000 as compensation for the burning of animals. We have to pay that money because, for years, we have neglected the necessary steps to provide, in the first place, the people who can conduct re
search, and, in the second place, for the research itself.
It is by means of these scholarships that we shall ultimately recruit men and women competent to carry on research work. By curtailing them we are turning off the tap which controls that very necessary supply, and the result inevitably will be grievous loss to the nation. A short time ago, owing to the kindly suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture, I acted as president of the commission which dealt with eggs and poultry. I see that the Ministry's research institution at Weybridge is referred to several times in this document and there is a polite series of suggestions as to more staff being required and more research being needed, first for this and then for that purpose, but at the end of it all we find a reduction in the Vote. Here is a section of the agricultural industry in which, according to the estimates given to the commission by experts, there is an annual loss of £3,000,000 a year. That is a staggering figure. I myself subjected the witnesses to prolonged cross-examination upon it but they stuck to it and on the whole I think they produced good evidence to show that it was a fair figure and that £3,000,000 a year represented the loss from disease in this one section of the industry. And there is one worker at the Weybridge institution engaged on this section of research and some of his time has to be given to the routine examination of specimens. That is the position in face of a £3,000,000 annual loss.
I wish I could congratulate the Minister, not upon the diminution of this Vote but upon doing what I am certain in his heart he longs to do, what he would rejoice to have the 'opportunity of doing, namely, putting this research work on a proper footing and providing these institutions with the facilities for research and training for which they ask. I know that it is the Minister who has to bear the blame but there is not a Member of this Committee who is not aware where the blame really lies. It is the paralysing hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which is the cause of all this, and because of it we are to go on paying £100,000 a year in compensation for burning animals while we refuse to provide those facilities. So long as we refuse the facilities so long shall we have to pay the compensation. I find, further, that we
have saved £5,000 in respect of small holdings and allotments. I well remember the saving made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on this item. We had, with great difficulty, made a start in connection with this work and a committee had been brought together under the then Lord Mayor of London, Sir William Waterlow.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: On a point of Order. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to address the Chair in order that we may hear what he is saying?

Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry if the hon. Baronet has not been able to hear me, and I shall endeavour to remedy that matter. I was referring to the reduction in the allowance for smallholdings and allotments. It arises of course out of the policy initiated by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. Under the previous Government we had made a start, with a committee which was presided over by the Lord Mayor of London and with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) was associated, in trying to get allotments for unemployed men, on which they could put in their spare time growing food for themselves and their families. This they were doing with great success but one of the first things which the present Government did in the name of economy was to dismiss the staff and disband the small committee which had been got together by the Lord Mayor of London and turn the work over to charity. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall and some of his friends are loyally and steadily doing their best to atone for the neglect of the Government. But it is a disgraceful thing, when we have hundreds of thousands of decent men who are unemployed and who would be glad of allotments, glad of the chance to get bits of land on which to grow vegetables for their families, that this service should appear on this Vote in connection with a reduction of £5,000.
I now come to the last item which I wish to criticise. It will be observed that so far my criticisms—except that in regard to foot-and-mouth disease—would have been more in order if I had been entitled to move an increase instead of a reduction, but not being entitled
to move an increase I have to make my points in this way. The other item to which I refer is that of £44,000 reduction in respect of drainage. I do not know in detail the schemes which have been delayed and which account for this reduction, but the real point of the matter is that the Government are not getting on with the work of drainage except in a piecemeal fashion. There is scarcely any sort of undertaking which would provide more useful work and be more remunerative to the community than drainage work. There are drainage schemes which I know, were prepared with great care and plans have been in existence in some eases for many years past. I do not know, for instance, what is being done in the case of the Great Ouse. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will tell us. I remember that when I was at the Ministry the details—the specifications almost—for the first section of that great scheme were ready and it could have been proceeded with a long time ago. There are other drainage schemes which were ready then nearly four years ago and which would have provided work for nearly 20,000 men apart from those indirectly affected.
It is true that in the case of the Upper Thames and in a few other cases a certain amount of progress has been made. There is the Weybridge scheme which was really sanctioned before the right hon. Gentleman came into office. But in the main there has been a standstill order with regard to the more urgent requirements in this respect and the big drainage schemes, since this Government came into power. I expect that just about now we shall find the same kind of floods occurring in Somerset as those to which they have been accustomed now for some years. No doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall came up in the train from Exeter the other day, he saw floods such as I have seen myself on many occasions. No doubt we shall see photographs in the newspapers of poor people paddling to their houses and children being taken to school in canoes and we shall hear the same stories of drowned pigs and chickens. We have the same kind of thing going on every year, simply because these grants are being withheld in the name of economy. We have these great schemes, not raising any party issues and undeniably required which have been worked out with
meticulous care; and in a large number of cases they are not proceeded with because we are under the impression that we cannot afford them. That is the only reason.
If one could only peep behind the scenes and get a glimpse of the memoranda which have passed from time to time between the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury, I think one would find that he has been expressing the very sentiments which I am now expressing. He would doubtless present his views with greater freedom and more force but I am sure they would be one the same lines. It is a discredit to the nation at the present time in view of the tremendous losses which the industry is suffering from disease that we should be confronted with this Vote asking us on the one hand to pay vast sums for compensation and on the other hand presenting us with a series of cheeseparing savings mainly at the expense of the schools and the research staffs and the grants for research. I am sure that in his own heart the right hon. Gentleman as a man with scientific training is ashamed of it but he has to put the best face he can upon it. Finally, with regard to the provision of work, we must deplore the evidence which this Vote shows that little energy is being displayed in the prosecution of long-needed drainage enterprises. On those various grounds, I beg to move this reduction in the Vote.

5.45 p.m

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) began his speech with, what some of us know as his more modern aspect. He began with a pretty little picture of the agriculturist who had spent his whole life in private enterprise, successfully building up an industry of the very best and most modern type. Having done that, he got tired of pointing out the good in private enterprise and went on to one of the old hack speeches, abusing the Minister up hill and down dale because he was not spending enough on research. If you really want to get good research, you ought not to have Government departments handling it. Wherever you touch agriculture in this country, you have always had very little results, comparatively speaking—although we get very good results sometimes—from Government research; the whole of the best
results have come from private individuals working privately.
Dealing with the question of foot-and-mouth disease, the Minister seemed to regard the enormously increased amount of it this year as an act of God. I have always been very unhappy that civilisation, research, and knowledge as we know them to-day have no better means of dealing with this disease than the mere killing of so many cattle here and there. I think there are many people, however, who deprecate merely regarding this disease as an act of God, rather than devoting a proper amount of money to research on a big scale in order to see if it is possible to cure it. I would like to see if it is possible to find a cure for this disease, and I was very disappointed that the Minister this afternoon did not lay more emphasis on his desire, which I believe is there, because he is essentially progressive, to find some new remedy for the disease. If he were to. ask for 40,000, £50,000, or £100,000 for definite research on this question, I think the House would give it with the very greatest willingness. I certainly would support' such a proposal.
The right hon. Member for Swindon attacked the Treasury, but the Treasury has not shown any great severity so far as these estimates are concerned. We have a continual sequence of supplementary estimates, and that would not have been the case if the Treasury had been as hard hearted as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe. I would like to remind the Government that on this particular supplementary estimate there are one or two headings, such as "Travelling and removal expenses," which refer purely to administration. Twenty years or any considerable time ago, if an estimate of this sort had been presented, we should have had a Treasury representative sitting in this House, and the Treasury would have been criticised for leniency and for not looking better after the public purse.
In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the quite extraordinary work which has been done with regard to the Colorado beetle, on which the Minister can justly congratulate himself and his Department, but in this matter of the destruction of pests I would like to know whether it is not possible to carry it a little further. Of all the pests which are
affecting agriculture at the present time, particularly in Scotland and the west country, the rabbit is the worst, and if the Minister could find some means of eliminating the whole of the rabbits as efficiently as he has dealt with the Colorado beetle, I am sure he would increase the productivity of this country enormously. If he came here for money for such a purpose, I would certainly support him. Although I have been a little critical of his expenditure a great many times, I think he has done agriculture a very great service in some of the research which has been worked out, particularly with regard to the Colorado beetle, but I wish he would carry it further with regard to some of the other pests. Some people might say that there are other pests affecting agriculture, such as officials, for instance.

5.52 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: Infinitely much the most serious point made by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) was his comparison between the sum alleged to be lost every year through diseases of livestock, namely, £3,000,000, and the small amount of research that is being done. [An HON. MEMBER "That was on poultry alone!"] Then it must be much larger with regard to animal diseases in general. I should agree with the right hon. Gentleman partly on that large figure of losses, and I hope that the Minister in reply will be able to reassure this Committee as to the amount of research that is being done. We know that very large losses arise from poultry, foot-and-mouth, and other animal diseases, and I think the Committee, before it arrives at a decision on this Vote, seeing that there are savings with regard to grants and grants-in-aid for agricultural research, would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, within the limits of what may be proper on this occasion, whether he is satisfied that as large efforts are being made in research in these matters which affect the farmer so vitally as are reasonably possible, in order to try to get to the bottom of the causation and cure of these diseases.
The other point that I should like to make is in connection with the saving on small holdings and allotments. I do not know whether the smallish saving of £5,000 is with regard to the particular
grant which the Ministry estimated that it would be making to help unemployed men cultivate their allotments, or with regard to the account for small holdings in general, but I think the Committee would like, to know, in case the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon may have created a contrary impression, that although the Government has lessened the grant that it made originally, and has thrown a large amount of the burden on the Society of Friends and the means of the well-disposed and charitable public, yet there has not been any reduction in that admirable work of helping the unemployed men owing to lack of money. The Government has at any rate, in its offer of £5,000, been able to supplement private beneficence, and the unemployed men have not gone short. At any rate, that is to some extent satisfactory. The point as to whether the grant ought not to be extended to cover the part-time holdings, which are now maintained only by private grants and the efforts of the Society of Friends and others, is another one, which probably would be out of order, but I think the Committee will be glad to have some reassuring statement, if the Minister can make one, with regard to the amount of research into diseases of livestock in general.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I hope the Minister will go more into detail with regard to the anticipated saving of £44,000 on land drainage and tell us whether this saving has been brought about because the work was not necessary. I do not know much about some parts of the country, but I certainly do know a little bit about south Yorksire, and I can tell this Committee that there is plenty of room for a good deal of money to be spent on land drainage there. In the area in which I live, namely, the Doncaster area, you have a scheme that has been in preparation for a good many months, anticipated to cost more than £500,000, and it is being held up because there is a difference of opinion between the Minister and the local authorities with regard to the amount of grant that should be paid by the Government. It is rather remarkable that my right hon. Friend the Member ifor Swindon (Dr. Addison) piloted through this House the Land Drainage Act of a year or two ago, and made it
plain that when that Act became operative it would be possible for large grants to be made to drainage boards in order to get on with very necessary work.
In the Doncaster area you have a huge area waiting to be drained, with the people living almost in fear of what is likely to happen when heavy rains come. They have not forgotten what took place last year and the year before when many of them were confined to their bedrooms because the water was almost up to the bedroom window; and they are anxious to know what is going to take place with regard to that scheme of work. When we come to realise that here there is an anticipated saving of £44,000, I think that amount and other amounts 'could be spent on very useful work, and not only would it relieve the anxiety of thousands of people in that area, but it would find useful and productive work for many men who are out of work and willing to do it. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee in detail where he anticipates saving this amount on land drainage, and why, and give us some assurance that the work in the Doncaster area will not be held up for want of money.

5.59 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: I should like to raise the question of the national stud. I am very glad indeed to see that there is a saving on the national stud. It is absolutely ridiculous that it should be in Ireland, and it is not fair to leave it there. There are very few mares going to that stud, and last year there was a very big loss on it. We have in this country a, great number of vacant stud farms, which might very easily be used for a national stud, and that would obviate the difficulty which the Minister has always said lay in removing the stud from Ireland to this country. If it were over here, it would be earning profits, and the time has now come, in my opinion, to make the change and bring the national stud to this country.
May I refer to a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison)? I had the opportunity this year of going round all the higher education centres and universities, and I agree with him that they are doing a great work. Would a larger grant for research, however, really have saved the foot-and-mouth
disease situation? I am a member of the Friesian Cattle Society and for some years we have been desirous of making an importation of cattle. We have been all round the world to try to find a country where there was no foot-and-mouth disease, and the only countries we found were South Africa and Canada. All the other countries have research departments, and some spend more than we do on research, and yet they have never discovered the secret of evading this plague. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman was putting the case a little unjustly when he assumed that the whole of the £120,000 required for the slaughter of diseased cattle is due to the fact that there has been a cut of something like £5,000 in the amount spent on research.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. PALING: When I saw among the anticipated savings a figure of £44,000 on land drainage grants, and when I found that the whole of the original estimate was only £68,000, it struck me as an amazing situation. One would imagine that land drainage in this country was in the best possible position, and that it was not necessary to spend any money on it. I do not know whether that is the situation in other parts of the country, but it certainly is not the situation in that part of the country where I live. For years land drainage in South Yorkshire has ben a tremendous problem, and for years we have been making attempts to deal with it. When the Land Drainage Act went through in 1931 it looked as if we had at last reached the position when something would be done. We have the power, but we have not the money. We have been approaching the Minister for many months with a view to getting grants for this very necessary drainage work.
On at least three occasions the people in Bentley 'have been flooded out. Hundreds of houses have been flooded, some from 18 inches to as much as eight and nine feet, and the floods have stopped for weeks. In addition, hundreds of acres of agricultural land have been flooded. That has happened three times, and as I came over the river this morning I saw that it was again very full following the heavy rains of the weekend, and people are nervous about what is likely to happen again if the rain con
tinues. Yet we cannot get money to deal with it. Everybody knows that the work has to be done, and everybody speaks of its urgency. It has been known for years, but money is lacking. The people are subject to this terror of being flooded again because they cannot get the money for the drainage work. In spite of that, the Government can save £44,000 out of an estimate of £68,000 this year. In view of this, what does the Minister intend doing? We have been negotiating with him for a long time, and, to put it plainly, the authorities concerned are falling out as to who is to pay.

Mr. ELLIOT: No.

Mr. PALING: At any rate, there is a dispute. The Ouse Catchment Area Board, which draws its money mainly from local authorities, is the body responsible, but the Minister is supposed to make grants and he has promised to make one. The amount to be spent on this one scheme is £525,000, but the Minister has promised a grant of only £100,000, and the local authority says that that is out of all proportion.

Mr. ELLIOT: The local authority accepted it.

Mr. PALING: It is true that the Ouse Catchment Area Board accepted the grant when it was offered in the first place, but the board complained from the beginning that the representation on it was not what it should be and that those places that had to pay most had the least representation. It protested so successfully that the Minister agreed that the representation should be altered and made more in accordance with liability of the authorities who have to find the bulk of the money. The new board, which better represented the various interests, promptly turned down the grant which had been offered by the Minister, and we have been arguing since then about who is to find the money.

Mr. ELLIOT: The board attempted to rescind the resolution by which it had accepted the offer. If that could be done, it would make local administration impossible. Why should not any local authority be able to rescind any acceptation it has made?

Mr. LANSBURY: The Government do it, and have just done it.

Mr. PALING: Why authorities do not do it in every case is because, in the majority of cases, they are satisfied with what the Minister offers.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member cannot have had much experience of local authorities if he says that.

Mr. PALING: I will put it another way. They accept the Minister's offers without any question, but in this case the board has not done so. It thinks that the Minister's grant is so small that it has turned it down. The situation now is that we are in danger any day of being flooded again. We have thousands of miners unemployed in our neighbourhood, and if this controversy were settled and if this huge scheme could be got on with, it would provide necessary work for people in the district. In view of the saving in this estimate, does not the Minister really think he could do more in this particular case? If both parties are to remain standing on their dignity, nothing will be done. I hope the Minister will take the initiative and offer a grant which the local authority can accept. If the Government can save £44,000 on this item, I do not think the Minister can argue that he is short of money for necessary work.
I was surprised to find that the main reason why the Ministry of Agriculture is asking for more money is the destruction of animals suffering from foot-and-mouth and other diseases, for which £132,000 extra is required. Ever since I have been in the House the question of spending money on research work in regard to foot-and-mouth disease has been discussed. It struck me as ironical that, while our cattle have suffered from this disease so badly this year as to call for another £132,000 to be spent on their slaughter, we can manage to save money in the direction to which ultimately we shall have to look for a remedy for the disease, namely, agricultural research and agricultural education. There is a saving on agricultural education of £21,500, on grants for agricultural research £5,650, and on grants-in-aid for agricultural research £1,500, on improvement of livestock £2,000, and on destructive insects and pests £1,950. In face of the tremendous ravages that this disease is making on cattle, is this the time to save money in directions to which sooner or later we shall have to look for a
remedy? I notice that there is a saving of £5,000 on grants-in-aid on the smallholdings and allotments account. I have had many complaints from people and -organisations responsible for running allotments about the meanness of the Government and in consequence the difficulty which they have to provide allotments and the necessary tools and seed. They are always short of money, and that appears to me to be ironical, in view of the saving of £5,000 in this direction, which hits the worst type of unemployed.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. GLOSSOP: I should like to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) with regard to the flooding in South Yorkshire. I do not agree with them that the grant which the Minister has offered is unreasonable. When other parts of the country have to be considered as well, the grant is not unreasonable, but it is an impossible situation for the Ouse Catchment Board to be able to create a standstill order, as it were. I should like to know whether the Minister is keeping in close touch with the Minister of Health as to the steps he will take in conjunction with him to deal with the flooding which is bound to occur, if not shortly, at any rate, in the next year or two. Nothing is more certain than that the floods we have had in Bentley during the last four or five years are going to occur again, and probably at an early date, and I should like to know if the Ouse Catchment Board are to be allowed to hold up the work of straightening out and cleaning out the Don, and what steps the Minister of Agriculture will take, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, to deal with the very dangerous situation that may arise and the menace to public health if the floods are repeated.
I cannot help thinking that this Debate has got a little out of proportion owing to the stress which the Members of the Labour Opposition have laid on the amount of money spent on compensation for foot-and-mouth disease. Listening to their speeches, one would imagine that foot-and-mouth disease was the most expensive and the most devastating with which agriculturists have to deal; but that is not the case. I would like the Minister
to tell us whether any of the money spent on research is devoted to mammitis or contagious abortion, which are very much more serious diseases affecting cattle than foot-and-mouth disease. The right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has very unfairly, I think, used this expenditure of £120,000 as a weapon with which to beat my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. He has tried to show that it is because the Minister saved money on research in different directions that he has been compelled to spend this £120,000.

Dr. ADDISON: I never said or suggested anything of the kind. I know far too much about it. I have struggled at the Ministry myself. What I say is that until we go out to encourage research we must necessarily be landed in great expenditure for compensation, and I blame the Government because they are discouraging research.

Mr. GLOSSOP: I have no wish to misinterpret the views of the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot help feeling, in spite of his explanation, that he did try to use this expenditure of £120,000 as a criticism against the saving on research. The problem of foot-and-mouth disease is a comparatively simple one. There is a great deal of knowledge about foot-and-mouth disease. Anyone who has been on a, farm, as I have, where foot-and-mouth disease has been in existence and where the cattle have not been slaughtered knows perfectly well that it is a simple complaint, as simple as influenza in an ordinary human being. The only thing which this country has to decide and has decided in the past, is whether we want cattle which have foot-and-mouth disease to be allowed to recover, which would mean our always having foot-and-mouth disease in the country, or whether, by a. policy of slaughter directly an outbreak is detected, we wish to keep the country comparatively clear of the disease; and I, personally, think that increased expenditure on research into foot-and-mouth disease would be an entire waste of money. I would very much rather see the money spent on research into very serious disease such as mammitis and contagious abortion.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I do not want to follow the last speaker, but it
struck me that all the disease referred to in his speech make a call for the expenditure of a larger sum of money on research. I think most Members will agree that it is only such lines that we can hope to eradicate the disease affecting agriculture. I understand that a. sum of £30,000 has been alocated for land drainage in Glamorganshire. According to the provincial Press to-day, there is some opposition to the expenditure of the money, and to the scheme as a whole, on the part of the landlords in that area. I wish to know whether the Minister is going to stand for that. I might also add that when the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was referring to all kinds of pests it seemed to me that the most singular pest from which we are suffering, particularly in Glamorganshire, are the pests to which I have referred. It would seem that from them alone are we having any oposition to this land drainage. The Minister will know that in that area are many persons who have been unemployed for some years. Of all people miners are, perhaps, the most practical men for this kind of work. Apart from their strength, they are the type of men who could be most profitably engaged in such work. We have periodical flooding of the Ogmore River. I do not know whether that river and the Ewenny river are to be cleansed as well. Flooding is very prevalent. I hope the Minister will tell us what is being done.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: Referring to what the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) said regarding land drainage in the South Yorkshire area, I would like to know whether the Minister has placed any limit upon the time within which the authorities in those areas must accept the offer of £100,000 and get on with the work. It appears to me that the local authorities and the Board are quibbling as to whether they should accept this figure, while all the time the people in that area are suffering because the work is not being put in hand. As hon. Members have already said, there is a great possibility of further suffering being inflicted on that area as a result of the recent heavy rainfall. If the Minister has not already suggested a time limit within which the authorities should accept the figure named, will he fix such a limit, in order
that they may realise that they must accept it now or suffer the consequences? In my humble opinion not only would that be a very effective line of action, but it would result immediately in the healing of the many local breaches that exist over this matter. In view of the accusations made by the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) and others about the "cuts," I would ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him to tell the House exactly what proportion these various savings would have assumed under the £700,000 economies at the expense of agriculture which the Opposition had themselves prepared prior to leaving office in 1931? It would certainly be helpful, because it would show us how sincere they are in their opposition to this Vote to-day. As to the £120,000 paid out as compensation for foot-and-mouth disease, I would urge on the Ministry to take into careful consideration the great differences between one breeder of cattle and another. Many men starting with a small income have built up an industry only to have it completely destroyed by this disease. I should like to know whether, as the result of research, there is to be any alteration in the policy pursued in respect of foot-and-mouth disease.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure that we can have no complaint to make about the reception of the Vote by the Committee, except the complaint, with which we are not unfamiliar, that the Committee have pressed upon us the necessity of spending more money. I do not think there was one speaker who did not stress the desirability of further expenditure, and I was very interested to hear that even from my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It is true, I think, that the Committee are anxious that there should not be any starving of the essential services which come under this Vote, and I am perfectly ready to take that not merely as a general expression of opinion in favour of more expenditure but as an anxious desire to ensure that in the industry of agriculture, upon which so much talk and, indeed, so much money has been lavished we are not spoiling the ship for a halfpennyworth of tar by small economies which will only lead to greater expenditure later. I hope I can give the Committee an assurance on that point. The savings on research and matters of
that kind are largely deferred payments, and the money will be spent at a later date. The big saving of £21,000 upon the Royal Agricultural College is also merely delayed and is not taken away from that College. The saving of £5,600 under Subhead G 5 on agricultural research is largely due to deferred payments on capital grant to the School of Agriculture at Cambridge, under the Rockefeller scheme, due to deferring the rebuilding of the farm buildings.
In general, I may say there has been no starving of these essential services on account of a desire to show small savings against the other items on which we have over spent. It has been said, "That is all very well, but the services in general should be developed to a greater extent. The development of research should be pressed on much more vigorously, because larger sums may be spent on it with advantage as a remunerative investment." It would be out of order for me to go into those questions at any length on this occasion, but there are certain items, such as foot-and-mouth disease upon which it is very difficult to say that a large immediate expenditure of £100,000 would produce any very substantial results. As the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) well knows, in many scientific matters direct frontal attack is by no means so effective as a flanking attack in some other corner of the field. We are working here upon a virus disease, and one in which we have not yet been able to detect the causal agent. It is so exceedingly minute as to baffle all attempts to trace it under the microscope or by the ordinary methods of scientific identification.
It may very well be that the key to this is not to be found in our veterinary laboratories at Weybridge and elsewhere, but during the investigation of cancer, or as a result of the work being carried on in Scotland or at Glasnevin in Ireland, into the diseases of potatoes; or, it may be, as a result of the work of the Agricultural Research Council at Hampstead or of the inquiry into the problems of immunisation being carried on at another of our laboratories. It is quite likely that the secret of this disease may lie in the leaf of the potato, and not in any of the experiments which are being conducted upon the larger animals themselves. Therefore the proposition, "Give me a larger expenditure of money
and I will give you a result," is not one which I can put forward on this occasion. There has been no reduction in this research expenditure. A certain level of capital expenditure is inevitable when a long distance programme is being carried out. At the present time an increased expenditure has to be found for Weybridge. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon will be pleased to hear that some of the expenditure there is to be devoted to the investigation of poultry diseases.
I should like to reassure the Committee upon other questions which were raised. There was uneasiness in the Committee lest the expenditure upon smallholdings and allotments were being cut down. I am glad to say that that is not so. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) knows, the actual expenditure on the allotment schemes falls upon the Development Fund and is not provided for by me, and therefore it would be impossible for me to go into it now at any length. The expenditure is not being reduced there, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are doing our utmost to co-operate in every way with the voluntary sources which have made such a magnificent response, and for whose work as well as for whose money, we are very much indebted. As for the saving on that, I will return to it later. The explanation may not be as welcome to hon. Members opposite as they perhaps have thought.
I come for the moment to the question of the drainage grants, which was raised by a number of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) said that the scheme was being held up because of difference of opinion between the Minister and the drainage board, and that I should tell the Committee in detail what is happening and assure the Committee that the work would not be held up for want of money. Another of the Yorkshire Members, the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), said that it was clear from the saving of £40,000 that there was plenty of money, and therefore we should go ahead. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Glossop) and the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Pike) both indicated that what was wanted was to trust the local authority, the drainage board. Those hon. Members all represent Yorkshire constituencies, and that is one
reason why I feel that that line of action might not be so effective as one might hope. I have had a long interview with the Yorkshire representatives on this question, and the last thing I should like to do is to hold a pistol at their heads and say, "There is the time limit; take it or leave it. In a day, a week or a month this offer will be withdrawn, and if you do not take this now, nothing else will be given to you." They might use language which might be very derogatory to a Minister of the Crown, and I should not like to put them into that temptation. I am still in hopes that better counsels will prevail.
I am anxious that the local authority should feel that they have been reasonably treated. I do not think that they can complain that they have not been listened to, or that they have been unfairly treated. I base that not only on the fact that the drainage board did accept the resolution, which was a bargain come to between the two sides, but also upon the fact that if I were to give all local authorities grants upon that basis there would be no saving of £44,000, but, instead, a very large expenditure indeed. Why is there a saving of £44,000? One of the large reasons for that is that the money offered to the Yorkshire people has not been taken up. Other authorities are taking up this money, and other schemes are being put forward and accepted which are, in fact, involving commitments for the future. These commitments are not making it easier to come to an arrangement—whenever the arrangement is finally come to—with the Ouse authorities of Yorkshire. I was asked to go into the actual position in some detail. As it is very desirable that we should take the question of land drainage very seriously, I will do so. There were 15 schemes which were put forward, and of these some have failed to materialise. There were 15 other schemes which have been submited, at a cost in all of £500,000, with the result that the schemes submitted or approved for grant are estimated to cost over £1,500,000, as compared with the estimate of £754,000 for the 15 schemes to which I have referred.

Dr. ADDISON: Does this grant include expenditure under Section 1 of the Great Ouse scheme?

Mr. ELLIOT: Section 1 of the Great Ouse scheme has not materialised, so far.
I do not wish to press this matter too far, but the work is certainly not being carried out; consequently, the schemes which have veen approved for grant costing £1,500,000 do not include the scheme for the Yorkshire Ouse. The total cost of that scheme was given by an hon. Member as something like £500,000, for which an offer of 20 per cent. was made to the local authorities by His Majesty's Government. There are certain other schemes, for instance, for the Great Ouse and the Derwent catchment areas, for which £4,200 was estimated to be required, but which have been unavoidably delayed, the Great Ouse for technical reasons and the Derwent catchment areas because of legal and other unavoidable difficulties. Out of £50,000, we put down £29,000 for the schemes which it was thought might be submitted during the year, and as regards which no definite knowledge as to cost or duration or the date of application was available when the schemes were under consideration. As a matter of fact, we over-estimated on these services, because we hoped that we should be in a more advanced position than we are, that the local authorities and others would also be further on with their schemes and that we should be able to go forward more quickly. Some of the schemes have not materialised, and therefore there is a saving. Some of the schemes have been transferred. Actually, four of the catchment boards have submitted schemes on a comprehensive basis, and have obtained grants towards loan charges. There have been, as I said, certain delays which are inevitable in the launching of a new service such as this.
When you are making grants towards loan charges, a very large amount of work is involved for a relatively small amount of grant, £100,000 worth of work, paid for by means of loan, on the 30 years' basis, involving expenditure of £5,500 per annum. If you assume, for some of the local authorities, grant of, say, 33 per cent., the Government commitment in a year for £100,000 worth of work done will amount to about £1,800. That is to say £18,000 for £1,000,000 worth of work. It means that although our expenditure looks small, we are, in fact, entering into a commitment which will involve a considerable amount of work being done.

Mr. PIKE: In view of the fact that the position in South Yorkshire brooks no delay, whatever be the attitude which the local authorities, together with the Ouse Catchment Board, have taken up towards the offer of the Government, is it not possible for the Minister to urge them to accept the offer and to carry on with their scheme until such time as either the Minister proves conclusively that his allocation is sufficient or they prove conclusively that it is not? Thousands of houses will be flooded out in the course of the next few months; that will happen anyway, but it will give a great deal of confidence to the local people if the Minister could accept my suggestion.

Mr. ELLIOT: A certain amount of the work has been going on. Knowing the anxiety of hon. Members upon this subject, I took special precautions before this Debate opened to ascertain the state of the river at the Don Bridge this morning. The position then was that the river was three feet above normal at Doncaster Bridge. Of course, there is speculation at the moment as to whether the river will continue to rise. It is true that a rise of seven or eight inches would mean that the river would begin to overflow into the so-called wash lands which are immediately north of Doncaster and east of Bentley. Although the flood waters would travel northwards there, they would have to rise to a very exceptional height to cause flooding, because before they reached Bentley they would come to the cross bank which the catchment board have constructed since the last flooding, and Bentley itself is further protected by an embankment constructed by the colliery company around the colliery village. All persons concerned are convinced that their position is right, but much neighbourliness is being shown because they recognise their obligations towards the people in the area. Defensive works are being constructed, and even in the case of floods there is every hope that the cross bank will keep the waters back, and that Bentley itself, surrounded by this bank, will be saved from the dangers which have proved real dangers in recent years.
I said I would return before the end of my remarks to the point about the saving of £5,000 on smallholdings. That is the failure of an experiment in collective
farming in this country. The attempt was made at Amesbury. Settlers were employed at the current district rate of wages, and they were to receive, in addition, a share of any profits arising out, of the farming operations. It will probably not surprise practical farmers, although it may disappoint many other hon. Members, to learn that so far from there being any profits there were very marked losses upon the farm. In 1931–32, the experiment lost £1,574; in 1932–33, it lost £2,488, and in 1933–34, £1,133. It was felt that it was time that this experiment, which had been showing a loss, should be brought to an end. It represents the end of an experiment in collective farming which showed, contrary to all the advice we had been given, that it was not possible under these conditions for this particular set of men to indulge in collective farming and leave anything over in the way of profits above their own wages to divide among themselves.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would the right hon. Gentleman amplify his very interesting statement? Could we have something in the shape of a report setting out the story of this experiment—how it was initiated, how it was worked, what have been the drawbacks or disadvantages, and the number of men involved—in fact, all that there is to know about it? I think it has been going for a number of years—I am not sure—and it is only a very sketchy statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not wish to go at length into it, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will realise, it would take up too much of the time of the Committee, but I will certainly consider whether a more extended statement can be made, because I do not say that in all cases such experiments are bound to fail, and, as any experiment of this kind must contain very valuable information, it is most desirable, now that we have done so much for land settlement, that we should have all the details possible. The saving represents the selling off of this enterprise and the taking into account of the capital sums. That is the reason, and the only reason, why a saving is shown on this sub-head. I hope very much that, with this information, it will be possible for the Committee to let us have the Vote.

Mr. PALING: In the original estimate these grants are shown under two heads—(a) relating to schemes promoted by local authorities, and (b) relating to schemes promoted by catchment boards, but the Vote does not say how much of this £44,000 is being saved on each. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us?

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I should be obliged, also, if he would give a reply to my question relating to Glamorgan.

Mr. ELLIOT: I have made such inquiries as I could in the time available, but am sorry to say I have not been able to obtain any information which would enable me to give an authoritative answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I should hesitate to believe that any section of the community would hold up works which would be beneficial to the whole community, and I should hope that there is some misunderstanding in what was stated by the hon. Gentleman. He will realise that I do not wish to commit myself at all, because, not having had notice of his question, I have only been able to make hurried inquiries and am not able to give a full answer.
On the other point, both of these are, of course, local authorities. They are both publicly elected bodies, though they differ slightly in composition. I do not

think I can give, across the Table, the information asked for by the hon. Gentleman as to which actual local authorities have underspent. As far as I know, all the grants that we put down were grants to drainage and catchment boards; there were no grants actually to local authorities in the accepted sense of the term. The hon. Gentleman will realise that local authorities as such—that is to say, borough and county authorities—come rather within the scope of the Ministry of Health, and I did not directly discuss these matters with them. The only local authorities which which I discussed them were the catchment boards and the drainage and water authorities, for these are the only ones which, so to speak, communicate with the Ministry of Agriculture; the others, naturally, communicate with the Ministry of Health. I should think that practically all the underspendings here are in respect of moneys which have been offered to or earmarked for water local authorities, that is to say, the drainage boards, and none actually for schemes of borough or county or city authorities.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £72,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 217.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cleary, J. J.
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Greenwood, Rt. Hon, Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Boulton, W. W.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bracken, Brendan
Conant, R. J. E.


Albery, Irving James
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cooke, Douglas


Alexander, Sir William
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cooper, A. Duff


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Apsley, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cranborne, Viscount


Asks, Sir Robert William
Brown, Cot. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Crooks, J. Smedley


Assheton, Ralph
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Davison, Sir William Henry


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Denville, Alfred


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Dickie, John P.


Bernays, Robert
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Lecfric
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Blindell, James
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D,
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)


Eastwood, John Francis
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lees-Jones, John
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Host, Ronald D.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Levy, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Liddall, Walter S.
Rothschild, James A. de


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Esienhigh, Reginald Clare
Liewellin, Major John J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Fermoy, Lord
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fielden, Edward Brockleharst
Lottus, Pierce C.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Ganzonl, Sir John
McCorquodale, M. S.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Somervell, Sir Donald


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Maitland, Adam
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Golf, Sir Park
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Graves, Marjorie
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Stones, James


Grentell, E. C. (City of London)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Storey, Samuel


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Meller, Sir Richard James
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Grigg, Sir Edward
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Grimston. R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Summersby, Charles H.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hanbury, Cecil
Morrison, William Shephard
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)


Harris, Sir Percy
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Monro, Patrick
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tree, Ronald


Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Hepworth, Joseph
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pearson, William G.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Peat, Charles U.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Hornby, Frank
Penny, Sir George
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hudson. Robert Spear (Southport)
Petherick, M.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pike, Cecil F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Janner, Barnett
Pybus, Sir John
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Ker, J. Campbell
Rathbone, Eleanor
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rea, Walter Russell



Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sir Walter Womersley and Dr.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rickards, George William
Morris-Jones.


Bill read a Second time, and committed.

CATTLE FUND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,146,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for a Grant to the Cattle Fund.

Dr. ADDISON: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some explanation of this Vote?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I shall be happy to do so. I did, of course, give a fairly comprehensive survey of the expenditures and the methods of administration in the Debate on the 18th February, and in that Debate I went over, I think fairly ex
haustively, the points which I desire to place before the Committee. If it be desired, I shall be very willing to answer any particular points which may be raised, but I should not, I think, embark on any full explanation either of the policy of the Government in giving this subsidy as an alternative to a drastic reduction of imports, or of the methods of administration. There is the point which has been made with regard to prices and that may be put forward as an indication of the failure of the policy. I think it would be quite unjust to say that. It indicates, as I have tried to point out to the House more than once, the fact that there has not been a reduction in the weight of beef supplies coming on to the market. Instead of a reduction, there has been an increase of those sup
plies, and the price situation has reflected it. The subsidy was given with the intention, not of making some great change, but of holding the situation while the long-term policy was being developed. It would be quite out of order for me to go into the question of the long-term policy now; but I may say that the longterm policy, in fairly full detail, has been not only worked out but laid before all those interested, and we are awaiting their further comments and negotiations. We are anxious to enter upon these negotiations as soon as ever it is possible for us to do so.
There is only one other point which I think I have to meet. It is that in spite of the subsidy the beef producer is worse off; he has not got the money which this House has voted. I pointed out that in the earlier months of the subsidy at any rate the producer got either the whole or a very large proportion of the subsidy, and that, as time has gone on and heavier supplies have fallen on the market, the price has undoubtedly gone down. This is not a new phenomenon. It is part of a decline in wholesale beef prices which has gone on over a period of years and which in fact made it necessary for the Government to start upon some course or other which would in the long run improve the position of the British beef producer. Left to the free play of economic forces British beef production would by now have come to an end and that great section of our industry would disappear. So far it is impossible for us to see any alternative source of employment into which those who have been engaged in this most British of all industries would pass; and so far as we could see they would have become unemployed.
That fall in price is certainly not due to the subsidy. It was taking place before. In January, 1932, the price of second quality fat cattle—the quality taken for the Ministry's index figure—was 40s. 4d. per cwt. In January, 1933, the price was 37s. 1d. per cwt. In January, 1934, the price was 35s. 9d. per cwt. In January, 1935, the price was 32s. 7d. per cwt.—although, of course, last January producers had the advantage of the subsidy of 5s. which they had not in the earlier periods. It is said that the consumer has got his meat no more cheaply and that the producer has got
very much less. Well, the difference between wholesale and retail prices has never been more clearly exemplified than in such figures as these. That difference in prices, which means the difference between bankruptcy and solvency to the producer, is scarcely reflected at all in the retail prices in this country. I have often given the House the example of the fact that the amount of wool in a suit of clothes makes practically no difference to the final price of the suit and that even if the wool were given away free there would be little difference in the cost. We all know that the amount of raw material cost which enters into the price of finished production is absolutely negligible compared with the wages cost.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Tell that to Bradford.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am astonished that my hon. Friend, who represents a London division existing to a large extent upon the great amount of skilled work put into finished production, should talk as if the coot of raw material had any substantial effect upon the price of finished production. If you take a ton of steel—

Sir P. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman was not talking about steel but about wool, and I say it is nonsense for him to say that the cost of the wool has no effect on the price of the suit. I say it has, and anybody in Bradford would tell him that I am right.

Mr. ELLIOT: It is difficult to argue under these conditions. I said nothing of the kind, and, if the hon. Baronet will look at my speech as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will see that I said nothing of the kind. I said that the cost of the raw material had a very small effect, and every practical man will confirm my view. Does the hon. Baronet deny it? If so, I will work out and send to him a statement of the actual cost of the raw material in a suit. How much raw wool at 5s. per lb. does he think goes to the making of one of his suits of clothes? Does he think that a shilling per lb. on wool would make a very great difference in the cost of a finished suit of clothes?

Sir P. HARRIS: Really I do not want to argue the matter.

Mr. ELLIOT: I agree, and I do not want to argue the matter, for it is self
evident. We all know that if you make a ton of steel into watch springs the cost of the original ton of steel plays a. very small part in the final cost of production of the watch springs. Unless we approach these marketing question with an open mind, we shall never get a solution of the difficult matters before us. I say that a very large turn in wholesale prices may not be represented at all, or at least very little, in the retail prices. This is one of the big difficulties of the present situation. The fall in wholesale prices which has meant almost bankruptcy to many meat producers has not worked through to the consumer. I will prove it to the hon. Baronet by this. In the case of mutton and lamb very large rises in the wholesale price have taken place, but not in any degree which makes the consumer complain. As compared with November, 1932, which was the bottom of the slump period, the rise in the wholesale price of mutton and lamb has been very great. Would the hon. Baronet be surprised if I told him that it was over 50 per cent. and over 60 per cent.; that it was in fact 70 per cent? Would he be equally surprised if I told him that the rise in the retail price of British mutton has in no case reached anything like 10 per cent.? This means that a rise in price of 70 per cent. to the producer has not been reflected to the extent of more than 10 per cent. in the rise of the retail price. That surely shows that it is possible for us to maintain a considerable improvement in the wholesale price of meat while it is possible that the consumer will suffer no great corresponding disadvantage, or a very small corresponding disadvantage. As long as we are, as we are just now, on a sliding market where the prices are constantly turning against the seller and bankruptcy approaching the producer without any corresponding advantage to the consumer, it is a fundamental problem that we are up against, and one for which we will still have to bend every nerve to find a solution for.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Try Socialism.

Mr. ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman says "Try Socialism." No doubt we shall hear about rigid control and bureaucracy and interference in a few minutes' time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Order, order.

Mr. ELLIOT: I fear that I was being led away. Our supplementary estimate is for the purpose of gaining time while we grapple with the very large and very novel problems which we are attempting to solve. If we attempt to solve these problems in the wrong way, it will lead to disaster not only to the producers but also to the consumers and the retailers. That money should be spent on holding the situation while these negotiations and discussions take place is not a matter for which any Member on this side of the House apologises for one moment. I may be blamed for not having secured a larger return to the producer during this time. That is certainly a matter which has been of deep regret to me, and it is the only matter for which I feel any regret in bringing forward this supplementary estimate. The price is -still unremunerative and the problem is still unsolved. [Interruption.] It is very interesting to see the confusion of thought on this matter at a moment when we are discussing measures dealing with unemployment, and to note that those who do not grasp any of the measures which are being taken are those who are making a protest against the action of this House. Unemployment in our day will not be solved by plunging agriculture into the state of unemployment which exists in industry. Agriculture is the hope of improved employment for many thousands of people in this country, and it is the industry which we must preserve. If we are to preserve it, we must be prepared to take drastic measures such as I have suggested to the Committee to-day. I make no apology in submitting this estimate, and I only regret that up till now the industry has not had the full advantage of it. Until that day comes any Minister who comes to this box must be prepared to stand here and say that we have not yet succeeded. I hope that the Minister who stands here will also say "But we shall not give up trying!"

7.13 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
With the right hon. Gentleman's last appeal we shall all agree. Although we may differ profoundly as to the methods we would employ to achieve that end, we all agree as to the vital necessity of
maintaining and improving agriculture in this country. With regard to the Vote, I will resist the temptation with which the Minister was enticed to discuss subjects so far removed from beef as watch springs and clothes. I prefer to confine myself rather narrowly to the subject of beef. I would ask the Minister this question. Where has the money gone? Who has got it? What arrangements were made for securing that those for whom it was intended have got it? That is the first issue that I suggest is proper to this Debate.
The other day we had a long discussion upon the policies that lie behind this Vote and I expressed the view, which I still retain very emphatically, that it marks the failure of the method of quantitative restriction. The point upon which I want the right hon. Gentleman to inform us, which he has failed to do hitherto, is what are the steps that are taken to secure that the producer really does get the benefit that the subsidy is designed to provide? A loyal Member of the right hon. Gentleman's own party told me the other day that, when this system of dealing with subsidisation of meat prices was introduced, the price of cattle at Hereford Market the week before had been 37s., but that within a fortnight of the introduction of the subsidy all he could realise was 32s. 6d The consumer in the shops paid the same price afterwards as he did before, and the producer of the animal got no more Where did the money go? That is a question that is worth exploring, and the right hon. Gentleman has not assisted that exploration at all. I suggest that one species or another of middleman has got that money, and he will get this, too, without doubt. It is for the right hon Gentleman to create machinery to see that he does not. It is a hopeless method of trying to help the farmer. He has been done out of it during the six months, and he will be done out of it during the next few months. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that, at all events, he got some of it. Perhaps we may admit that he got a little bit, but the House intended that he should get it all. It was intended by the House that the producer should get this 5s. in addition to what the market was providing him, because the market price was not enough. The House said, "We will add to the market
price 5s." As a matter of fact, they have not provided that 5s.—he gets the same as he did before—therefore there is something wrong with the machinery, and I suggest that there will remain something wrong with the machinery until we establish the necessary agency to cut out those who are taking away from the producer the money that Parliament is voting for him. It is a futile proceeding.
I must refer to the watch-spring argument. It seemed to arise out of the price of wool in a coat, which was a little obscure. The point is that there is no relation whatever between a case like that, where the value of the raw material in a highly complicated manufactured article is very small, and what happens to a joint agreement. The plain fact is that the history of this subsidy shows for the last six months, and will continue to show, that this grant of money by Parliament for beef is largely filched away from the producer by the middle-man, and that will be the case until we take our courage in our hands and adopt my hon. and learned Friend's sotto voce suggestion and try a Socialistic remedy. We will control prices so as to protect the consumer and we will have an agency—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are in Committee of Supply.

Dr. ADDISON: I was following the attractive lead given by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am only commenting on the inadequate arrangements at present in being for seeing that the producer gets what Parliament intends him to have, and I suggest that it is our business as sensible people to create the necessary machinery. As the machinery has not been created, we are not giving the benefit to the producer that we want him to have.

7.23 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I am not going to delve into this subject very deeply, because it was discussed when the original proposal came before the Committee last week. Let me first express my regret that I used the word "nonsense" when the right hon. Gentleman was elaborating his argument. There is no Member of the Government for whom I have more respect and affection, and I do not want it to be felt that I was
prompted by any desire to be discourteous. But it was a remarkable and a most dangerous doctrine that the right hon. Gentleman put forward. He is a most ingenious Minister, and he is always prepared to bring forward new ideas. When he suggests that the price of the raw material has very little effect on the price paid for the commodity by the consumer, he is putting forward a theory which has the most dangerous reactions. He suggested that the wholesaler can raise and drop his prices without any scientific consideration, because the price of the commodity when it reaches the public will remain constant. He brought forward the doctrine, which I thought would be very interesting to the grower of wool here and in the Dominions, that whatever they got for their wool did not make very much difference to the price of the finished article. It may not have very much effect on a 10 or 11 guinea suit bought in Bond Street, or Jermyn Street, but of course the two or three guinea working class suit is intimately affected by the price paid for the cloth, the cloth is affected by the price paid for the yarn, and the yarn is inevitably affected by the price paid for the wool. When a Minister of the Crown suggests that the price paid by the public is not affected by the original price paid to the grower, he is reduced to a very poor pass to fortify his case in asking for this large sum of money.
The absurdity of it all is that he weakens his whole case. The farmers have a strong case for help—undoubtedly they are going through hard times—but this is the wrong way to give it. There is a stronger case, from the point of view of raising prices, for a tariff. If you put a tariff on a commodity, it tends to raise prices. If your purpose is to raise prices, you are more likely to achieve it by a tariff than by this clumsy way of doing it, because the inevitable result of this subsidy is to draw supplies into the market and, far from raising prices, to tend to bring them down. That is exactly what has happened. We asked the right hon. Gentleman last week to explain what became of the money. Who has got it? We should like to know. He has his inspectors and his organisation at the board. He has his statistical department. He has his machinery for collect
ing information. We are entitled to ask who has got the money that has already been voted before we pass this supplementary estimate.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) is more or less right. The subsidy has acted as a stimulus to the producer to bring his cattle to the market and the farmer has found, as we rather anticipated, that the weapon has not achieved the purpose that we all desired, of helping the farmer. If it is really true that the low price has not been reflected in the retail shops, there is something fundamentally wrong with the whole marketing system. In bulk commodities a reduction in wholesale prices ultimately reaches the consumer. We see it in butter and milk and we have seen it immediately reflected in the price of bread. It may be that a small percentage does not reach the purchaser but, if there is an increased price for wheat, it goes into the flour and into the bread, and ultimately reaches the retailer and the public. I want to know before we part with this Vote how this money is to be supplied. We were told last week that there was to be a levy.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS

READING CORPORATION BILL

(By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time"

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: I do not wish to move the rejection of the Bill, but to move an Instruction with regard to the omission of certain Clauses. I do not oppose the Second Reading, because we all admire and like the great Borough of Reading with its biscuits, beer and flowers, and, of course, its excellent Member of Parliament, but when we come to these Clauses which—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to move an Amendment to the Second Reading?

Mr. PETO: I am not speaking against the Second Reading, but I wish to move the Instruction.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not put the Motion for the Second Reading yet.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. PETO: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Sub-section (1) of Clause 29, and Clauses 32, 33, 43, and 44.
We received this morning a statement from the Reading Corporation explaining their reasons for including these Clauses, and we are very grateful for it because it tells us exactly their point of view. Their primary point is that these Clauses have already been embodied in a goodly number of private Bills, but that is exactly why I hope that the House will take action to-day to prevent them being embodied in further private Bills. The reason they are being embodied in private Bills is because the consumers of electricity, like many other branches of consumers, are entirely unorganised. There is no body with any organisation to oppose a Bill of an electricity company or electricity department of a borough or corporation. All through this class of legislation we see every possible effort made to protect anybody who might be likely to object, such as other local authorities. "Dog does not eat dog," and they are careful to exclude from their Clauses other local authorities. They also exclude railway companies, gas and water companies and anybody who is organised and likely to oppose them. Therefore, the Clauses to which we so strongly object are really only applied to the private consumer, including of course the commercial and industrial consumer who is of such very great importance. That is why these Clauses have found their way into so many Bills.
It will be within the recollection of the House that last year the electricity supply bodies decided to introduce a Bill to consolidate a great number of Clauses—some 29—which they had succeeded in getting embodied, without opposition, in a, number of private Bills. I remember that the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) drew a high place
in the ballot and introduced this consolidating Bill. He told us that it would be unopposed, as the Clauses had been introduced in individual Bills, but the moment the Bill appeared for Second Reading, and hon. Members saw the Clauses to be included, it was very severely criticised on the Floor of the House, and wishes were expressed that the Committee concerned would take every effort to protect the consumer. When the Bill got upstairs it was more or less torn to pieces. The promoters themselves withdrew a good many Clauses, others were drastically amended, and some were struck out altogether. When it returned to the Floor of the House you, Mr. Speaker, commented on the number of Amendments moved by the promoters and said that it was unusual on the Report stage, and that such procedure was not to be encouraged. Once more the Bill was mutilated. It took us the whole of a Friday, and I do not think that we got much more than half way through the Bill, and that was the end -of that Bill. That was the first time that the House of Commons had had a chance of expressing an opinion on the Clauses which I am seeking to exclude from this Bill. After we had expressed our opinion we found the Reading Corporation trying to turn our flank by reintroducing these Clauses quietly into a Bill which otherwise would be unopposed. I am glad to say that the attention of certain Members was drawn to it and we have therefore blocked the Bill, and now we have an opportunity of discussing it.
Let me direct the attention of hon. Members to the Bill in order that they may see the Clauses which we want to throw out. First of all, I take Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 29, to be found in page 21, line 13. It reads as follows:
The premises which may be entered shall include all premises in the electricity limits in which electric fittings are being or have been installed.
That is an amazing suggestion. It repeats word for word the provision which was in a Bill we considered last year. We had no answer to this whatever on the Report stage of that Bill. Why should the Reading Corporation wish to enter houses or factories which have their own private supply of electricity? Why should the Oxford body have a right to enter my house in Oxfordshire, where I generate my own electricity, merely because
I happen to be in their area? Why should they enter works and factories? Many of the largest works in this country still have their own supply of electricity. They generate their own supply, which has nothing whatever to do with the Corporation supply or any public supply. On what plea—and I hope that any hon. Member who supports this Bill will answer the question—do they seek to enter houses and works where they are not supplying electricity? It seemed clear to a good many of us that this must be a slip of the pen, or bad drafting. We thought that the words should read:
are being or have been installed by them,
and the words "by them" have been omitted from the Bill. The promoters themselves moved an Amendment on the Report stage of that Bill excluding factories and workshops because they thought it would be unfair that secret processes should be open to the eyes of an inspector of a company with no possible interest in such works. That Amendment was carried and yet we have come back to the old Clause. This is no bad drafting and no slip of the pen but a deliberate intention to give this body the power to enter any house or factory they like provided it has electricity even though they have nothing whatever to do with the supply of electricity or fittings to that house or factory. I submit that that is certainly a Clause which we ought to strike out. Where are we going to end? The gas people will want to go over a house where there is no gas, the water people, although one might have his own well, the Ministry of Agriculture, although there were no animals, and the Ministry of Education, although you have no children. It leads to endless inspectors wandering round at our expense and prying into every corner without the slightest reason or justification. Hon. Members will notice that the Clause ends with Subsection (4) which excludes the Reading Gas Company, no doubt because they would have objected. Therefore, they are carefully excluded.
The next Clause we wish to exclude is Clause 32 which is in two parts. The first part gives the Corporation the power to cut off electricity, a very serious thing. Now that factories are driven more and more by electricity the cutting off of electricity supplies means stopping the whole factory. If you are an individual it is
very inconvenient to have your lights suddenly cut off, but there is this power:—provided that if in the opinion of the Corporation a consumer acts in any manner contrary to the terms of such agreement, the corporation may discontinue to supply electricity. On the 9th April last year I received a letter from a very large London electricity company who supply my London house saying that as from the previous 1st January my agreement and all agreements would be null and void, and that certain alterations were to take place. I wrote to the Electricity Commissioners in view of the Electricity Bill in which I was interested, and said that it seemed to be an extraordinarily high-handed action. I have been in business all my life and I have never heard of anybody claiming the right to alter every condition of an agreement and say that it should be altered retrospectively. That is the procedure under which we suffer. The electricity suppliers can apparently alter the agreement retrospectively when they like, and if they think that you have infringed it they can cut off your whole supply, until as stated in page 23, line 32:
They are satisfied that any electricity supplied to such consumer will be consumed in accordance with the terms of such agreement.
Not only can they make and alter an agreement as they please but they have to be satisfied that you are carrying it out, and you cannot appeal to any other authority, the law or anyone else. That is one side of the Clause. The other side of the Clause is equally unjust the other way. They take the power to cut you off but supposing they cease to supply you, you have no remedy as their consumer unless you can prove that it is caused by wilful neglect or default of the corporation. Though the period I have been in this House is only eight or nine years the whole electricity supply of this House has been cut off on two occasions causing great inconvenience to Members and delay in the affairs of the State. Therefore we have had experience ourselves. We receive no apologies in these cases and get no explanation. Unless we can prove wilful neglect or default, unless the chairman of the suppliers has wilfully shoved a spanner into a turbine or something like that we have no remedy whatever. The Clause was withdrawn by the promoters of the original Bill.
Such was the feeling of the Committee about it that they withdrew it.
Clause 33 which we wanted omitted deals with transformers, a less important point, but still it might lead to great inconvenience. You agree to a transformer being placed on your premises, and that transformer may then be used by the corporation to supply other people. That sounds reasonable enough, but I fear it is merely a cuckoo's egg laid in our nest. As the bird grows, the rest of us will be pushed out of the nest. When the opportunity occurs you may be turned out of your house, which may be turned into a sub-station. If it happens to be a factory, you may find yourself very greatly inconvenienced by the transformer becoming larger and larger, and your sub-station being turned into a supply station for the whole district. It is a Clause which is certainly unfair to the consumer, the person who has had the transformer installed in his premises. The promoters also withdrew that Clause. Then we come to Clause 43. This Clause gives the corporation power to cut off your electric light or power if you are in arrear with your payments
in respect of any apparatus or fitting let on hire by the corporation or supplied by them on hire purchase terms which the corporation are under obligation to maintain.
I am not quite sure to which part of that sentence the words "which the corporation are under obligation to maintain," apply. It may be held that they only apply to the apparatus or fittings supplied on hire purchase terms, and not to the whole. In any case, why should the corporation have this extraordinary power? If you hire electrical apparatus from your local ironmonger or electrical supplier and you do not pay, he can remove the articles and sue you for the balance due. He has not the power to cut off your supply. Why should the corporation be given a power which the ordinary supplier of electrical goods has not got? Why cannot the corporation recover under the law in the ordinary way after removing the articles that have not been paid for, instead of being placed in a position as dictators in the district where they are competing with other traders? That is a grossly unfair Clause, and it was withdrawn by the promoters.
Clause 44 gives power to the corporation to charge for cutting off the supply.
You may have some dispute about the agreement which they may have altered, and before you know where you are your supply is cut off. There will be a little picnic for the corporation employé in playing about with your premises and cutting off the supply. You do not know what it costs, but you have to foot the bill. It is something like the case of a, person who sends you a bill with a halfpenny stamp, and then asks you to pay the halfpenny as well as the bill. The Clause is unreasonable and ought to be struck out. We may be told, that all this is done for the good of the consumer, that here is some parental authority who are really acting in the interests of the consumer and trying to do their best for him. We were told at school when we were subjected to corporal punishment, that it hurt the master a great deal more that it hurt us and that it was only done for our good. We have left school a long while ago, only too long, and we have reached an age at which we can judge what is and what is not good. We represent an enormous body of consumers of electricity, private consumers and consumers in factories all over the country, and we are consumers of electricity ourselves, and we hope that the supporters of the Bill will not try to persuade us that their action is only taken to give us a benefit which we are quite incapable of understanding. We understand the penalties imposed in the Bill, and on those grounds I move the Instruction.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: I beg to second the Motion.
I support my hon. Friend in his effort to demonstrate to the House that our desire is to protect ordinary individuals who collectively are not in a position to make their own case known or to protect their own interests. There could be no better proof that the object is to enslave people in the way in which the different Clauses are drawn. I will turn first to Clause 29. Under this Clause the ordinary rights conferred on the corporation in the Act of 1882 are extended to enable the corporation to enter premises in which electric fittings are being or have been installed. Dictatorial and autocratic powers are to be given and the notice to be given is so short and in some cases there is to be no notice at all, that the Englishman's right in his
own castle ceases to be assured and is liable to be invaded to a degree that I have never seen suggested before.
Looking further into this Clause one sees that the intention is to put into the power of the authority, despite anything they may have been agreed to previously, an autocratic control which will protect the interests of the authority but will not take sufficient account of the interests of the consumer. After an agreement has been made for the supply of electricity for light or power, why should additional power be required, power which is quite outside the original agreement, to enable the authority to do just as they like? If you have made an agreement with an authority or with anybody in ordinary civil life, you expect that each party to the agreement will carry it out according to its terms. In this Clause there is introduced something which, so far as I know, is introduced for the first time in any Bill, which will give one party to an agreement power to break the agreement. If we accept such a principle the risk of extension that may take place will be very great. These things creep in little by little. We must therefore make it clear that no authority is entitled to have such a power. That is the reason why we think our Instruction should succeed.
I do not understand the following provision in the Clause:
If there is found to be no such contravention the corporation shall refund to the consumer any expenses or loss he may have incurred owing to the cutting off or disconnection of the supply of electricity to the premises.
What on earth does that mean? Is not that a dangerous provision from the corporation's own point of view? It would include-any consequential expenses, anything in relation to loss of trade that may be occasioned by an act of the corporation. It is vague expression. The Clause further provides that where any premises that the corporation are entitled to enter are unoccupied, they may enter without notice in a case of emergency, and in any other case after giving not less than 48 hours' notice. Is that all the notice that they will give of any action that they may take? The Clause proceeds to say that if the owner is unknown to them:
and cannot be ascertained by them by diligent inquiry by affixing such notice upon
a conspicuous part of the premises, they may forcibly enter the same.
What does this "diligent inquiry" mean? Who is to say that they have diligently inquired? I do not understand why the corporation want these extraordinarily wide powers, and at the same time they do not tell us how we are going to ascertain that they have observed the conditions. The Clause further says that:
Any person who shall refuse or unreasonably neglect to admit any officer of the corporation to any premises which they are entitled to enter …
shall be liable to a severe penalty. A person is to be liable to a heavy penalty because he may have refused or unreasonably neglected to admit an officer of the corporation. That is a form of words which I cannot suppose any corporation would seek to act upon.

Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN: I understand that the hon. Member is only moving to omit Sub-section (1) of Clause 29.

Mr. CHORLTON: I want to explain the lines on which the whole of the four clauses run. Clause 32 seeks additional powers despite the fact that an agreement may exist between the parties. I cannot understand why, when an agreement has been come to, that one of the parties should seek to break it by getting special Parliamentary powers. This would place one of the parties at a disadvantage because he might not know of the existence of this additional power. One of the greatest difficulties is the ignorance of the ordinary customer with regard to various Acts relating to its services of supply, whether it may be electricity or otherwise, and he can be very easily caught. This Clause gives the corporation extraordinarily wide powers to act such as they think fit. Not only can they cut off the consumer but they need not resume the supply of power until
they are satisfied that any electricity supplied to such consumer will be consumed in accordance with the terms of such agreement.
The matter is entirely in their hands. The Clause also says that the authority
shall not be liable for any damages occasioned to such customer.
It is true that this provision is limited:
unless the same is caused by or in consequence of the wilful neglect or default of the Corporation.
Who is to decide the wilful neglect in this case?

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: It would help us if the hon. Member would tell us what he is reading from and to what paragraph he is referring.

Mr. CHORLTON: I am reading from Clause 32 on page 24, line 20. The Instruction also refers to Clause 33, which deals with a separate transformer. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston.

Mr. THORNE: Hear, hear.

Mr. CHORLTON: Wait a minute. The Clause as it stands might be read to allow an extraordinarily wide extension of the size of transformer which might be used. In a flat you might use a transformer in one part to supply the other parts. The Clause means more than that. It is not limited in that way. It might be used to supply power to a factory alongside, and I do not think it should be allowed to stand as it is. It should be limited so that one party will not suffer a disadvantage. In regard to Clause 43 which my hon. Friend has already dealt with, I would only remind the House that it is really an extension of the autocratic power given to a corporation. They are to be able to cut off the supply:
In respect of any apparatus or fitting let out on hire by the corporation or supplied by them on hire purchase terms which the corporation are under obligation to maintain remains unpaid after the expiration of such period … as the corporation may from time to time determine.
Apart from authority to act in this way they are also to have the power to give notice to cut off the supply at such period as they may determine. That might mean a day's notice. It is not at all clear. In Clause 44 it says that the corporation may recover not only from the person but from any other person on account of whose act or default the supply was cut off. They are to decide who are the persons concerned. There is no provision that the matter shall be dealt with in the ordinary way in the courts, and, further, there is no provision that if the corporation is the party to blame they shall refund to the purchaser any of the expenses he may have incurred not only in regard to the cutting off of his supply but in regard to any trade loss which
may have resulted. We regard this as an attempt, in a very insidious and quiet way, to put into the hands of a bureaucratic authority the power to enslave the ordinary people of this country. If I had had a legal training I imagine that I could have made a very strong case for our point of view, but we have tried to put an ordinary man's point of view and I hope the House will regard it as nothing but an honest attempt to show how this octupus is gradually extending its tentacles over the whole of the country.

8.5 p.m

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Captain Bourne): I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, because the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) in moving his Instruction has explained very clearly what happened with regard to the Bill promoted by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) last session. My only excuse for intervening is that the decisions taken by Parliament on that occasion have placed the Private Bill Committee in this House in a somewhat serious difficulty. Up to the introduction of that Bill and its passing through Committee, and its partial passage on Report, the Clauses of which the hon. Member has complained had been regarded more or less as common form Clauses. There were, I think, one or two which had been amended in detail in earlier private Bills. When, however, the House expressed very strong views on grounds of public policy that it was undesirable that these Clauses should continue, we felt on the Private Bill Committee obliged to strike these Clauses out of several private Bills last session. These Clauses the promoters and undertakers generally have inserted in private Bills, or something like them, and it is putting a real burden on Private Bill Committee, which it should not be asked to bear, to determine whether in cases where the House has expressed its views on public policy it should make an exception in private Bills.
All my interest in this matter is that the House should come to a definite conclusion, because this is not the only Bill promoted in this session in which these Clauses are inserted. This Bill has been taken partly by agreement as a test case, and hon. Members on the Private
Bill Committee are anxious to have instruction from the House as to how we are to deal with these Clauses. Let me make one last observation. The hon. Member for Bilston seemed to be under the impression that if a Clause is drafted in a private Bill it cannot be amended by the Private Bill Committee unless it is opposed by some outside body. I wish to assure him that that is not the case. I am certain, however, that in considering these Bills, if the Instruction is not carried, we shall at least give great weight to the observations he has made and consider what Amendments, if any, are needed should the House decide that these Clauses shad be left to the Private Bill Committee to consider on their merits.

8.10 p.m.

Dr. HOWITT: I hope that the House will reject the proposed Instruction. The clauses to which it applies seem to me to give rights which should properly be invested in the Corporation of Reading. Indeed, that must have been the opinion of the House of Commons in the past, because there are many precedents for these powers being vested in the corporation. With regard to Sub-section (1), Clause 29, giving further powers to enter upon premises, may I point out that this power has been granted 35 times to corporations during the last six years, five times in 1934 and 10 times in 1933. I cannot see why Reading should be deprived of this power when it has been granted to 55 other corporations. With regard to Clause 33 dealing with the use of a transformer, I am told that this power is extremely useful in supplying a large building which has been made up into flats. During the past six years this power has been granted 33 times, and again I do not see why it should not be granted to Reading. The hon. Members who have moved the Instruction are fearful as to what may happen if corporations and companies have these powers, but in neither of their speeches was there any suggestion that these powers, which have been so frequently granted in the past, have been abused in any way. That is a very important consideration. The great thing is that they have been granted in so many cases in the past and have not been abused.

Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Member say why the corporation want powers to enter
premises where they are not supplying electric light?

Dr. HOWITT: They would not use this power unless they thought the right was being abused by a company manufacturing their own electric light. The House will be countenancing a great injustice to the borough I have the honour to represent if they refuse to grant these powers. I hope the House by its vote to-night will show that it does not propose to give powers to a corporation one day and then, when exactly the same powers are asked far by another corporation, on another day refuse. It is not just if one corporation is granted powers that they should be refused to another.

8.14 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): As the Minister responsible for the general supervision of electricity undertakings, perhaps I may help the House to decide the question which the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means has raised. As he has informed the House, these clauses are in common form, and it is only necessary to look at the formidable list of precedents for the House to realise what grave injustice it would. be doing to the Reading Corporation if it withheld from the corporation the facilities which in the past they have always been ready to grant other corporations. The Instruction goes even further than that. It seeks to lay down that the Reading Corporation shall not even be permitted to argue their case for a like treatment with other corporations before a Select Comittee of this House. How does that question arise? The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means has told us. In the last Session some, though not all, of these provisions were rejected by the House of Commons on the general Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp).Some, but not all—

Mr. G. PETO: All withdrawn or objected to.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That, I am instructed, is not the case. Clause 29 (1) passed the Committee stage, it is true with some amendment, but it did pass. It can also be amended when it comes before a Select Committee. But it did pass through the Committee and the Report stage in this House. As regards Clause 32 (1), that was not in the Bill at all in any stage; at any rate so I am
instructed, and I think correctly instructed. There is combined in the Instruction, therefore, an invitation to reject both what the House of Commons passed and what they did not pass. I would like to draw attention to a further anomaly that will arise if the instruction were carried. While it is true that the House of Commons rejected some of these provisions, they were carried in another place. Therefore, you would have the position arising that upon some proposals petitioners would obtain more liberal treatment in another place than in this House.
I do ask hon. Members to appreciate what they would be doing. If they passed this instruction it would mean that for all time all petitioners would be debarred even from arguing their case before the House of Commons, because in one Session of a particular Parliament on a particular Bill, a certain course was taken with regard to particular Clauses. Parliament does not consider itself bound by decisions which. it has taken in a previous Session. These are not the laws of the Medes and Persians for all time. The House of Commons can always review its previous decisions. While I have no actual interest in this matter, except the interest which imposes upon me the duty of safeguarding the public interest, I do ask the House to consider that it would be doing what is not equitable or fair to the Corporation of Reading if it deprived that corporation of an opportunity to argue before a Select Committee of the House of Commons upon the merits of its own case. Those are the only observations that I have to make and I trust that they may be of some assistance to the House.

Mr. G. PETO: Will the Minister explain why the corporation should have the power to enter premises where they are not supplying electricity?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not called upon to answer, but I will do so to the best of my ability. My hon. Friend himself in his speech described the words in that Clause as a slip of the pen. I think it is clearly not contemplated that the corporation should have power to enter upon any premises whether they are supplying electricity or not. If that is a slip of the pen, as I believe it to be, the phrase can be rectified, in accordance
with the procedure of the House, before the Select Committee. I have deliberately foreborne from arguing the merits of the Clauses which Parliament has decided upon in the past and can decide upon again, but there is not a single argument advanced by my hon. Friends opposite, who have so ably presented their case, which would suggest that these are to be the final words of the Bill. Every Clause in the Bill is capable of investigation and scrutiny, and, if necessary, of amendment, in the public interest.

Mr. PETHERICK: In what number of cases has this House refused to grant similar powers to other corporations?

Mr. HOPE-BELISHA: I am not aware of any case.

Mr. LEVY: May I ask your guidance Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Are we to understand that this Bill when it goes to a Select Committee will have a thorough investigation, even though it may not be opposed and the only people concerned are the Reading Corporation?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): If the hon. Member knows anything of the procedure of the Committee on Unopposed Bills he knows that Bills are subject to the most careful scrutiny.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: This is not the first time that we have heard similar arguments in this House. They have become rather familiar to some of us. I think I have heard them during the last 13 years off and on, and there is, therefore, nothing new in them. When it is argued, however, that this Bill should take heed of the fate of a private Bill and be guided by it, I am a little astonished. An hon. Member said that the consumers have no organisation to oppose the Corporation. That is a very strange argument to employ, because in the city where I live we assume that the Corporation and the citizens are at one, and if we do not like our city councillors we send others to replace them. We do that sometimes with our Members of Parliament too, and we might do it again. That sort of argument will not avail, because, after all, the consumers of Reading have made their Corporation what it is. I suppose it is a council with a Tory majority. If it is a Tory council that is fathering this Bill, I presume that the majority of the con
sumers of electricity in Reading may also be Tories. Consequently they must think alike about this Bill.
I can never understand the point of view expressed by hon. Gentlemen, that a council must always be against the interests of the consumer when the council supplies the citizens with electricity and gas and other services. The hon. Gentleman was very keen against inspection by the corporation. I am sure that he would not be against even more inspection if a private undertaking was concerned in this business. If these powers were asked by a private capitalist company hon. Members would probably not have moved this Instruction at all. What they object to is not the powers in these Clauses, but that the powers are to be vested in a municipal corporation. As far as the Labour party are concerned, we want the municipalities to have all the powers possessed by private enterprise undertakings and why should they not have such powers? Hon. Members apparently do not like the idea of a corporation having power to cut off electric light or power. The corporation of the city in which I live supplies gas, water, electricity and education. I have lived there for 29 years and my electricity or my water supply has never been cut off and I will tell hon. Members why—because I pay my accounts.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Nor have they cut off the hon. Member's gas.

Mr. DAVIES: If my gas were cut off I am sure the hon. Member's would be cut off at the same time. But surely a corporation does not want to do anything which would be outside the terms of their agreement with the consumer. Hon. Members know that in every town and village there are to be found some people, though they are a very small percentage, who like to challenge a corporation or local authority on everything it does. I know one individual whose gas, electricity and water supplies have all been cut off from time to time because he sets out to dispute with the corporation on everything they do whether it is right or wrong. When there are people like that a corporation ought to have power to deal with them. Let me now deal with another argument. One hon. Member implied that a corporation should not be entitled to cut
off a supply, even if the consumer was in arrears. If a corporation supplied water, gas or electricity, without taking care that payments were made by the consumers, then nobody would pay in the end. These corporations must have powers enabling them to get payments for the services they render. What happens in private trade? Let any hon. Member buy a sewing machine on the hire-purchase system and fall into arrears in his payments and he will see what will happen.

Mr. THORNE: Or anything else.

Mr. DAVIES: Yes, or furniture or anything else. There is no hesitation about taking action in those cases. Consequently I do not think that that argument will avail either. But the strangest thing about this discussion is that while the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Howitt) supports the Bill—very naturally—yet the hon. Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Chorlton) opposes it. But the Mancester Corporation have all these powers and I challenge the hon. Member for Platting that if this were a Manchester Corporation Bill he would not stand up and deliver the speech which we heard from him.

Mr. CHORLTON: May I remind the hon. Member that it is not so very long ago since we did oppose a Manchester Bill.

Mr. DAVIES: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he is a very brave soul, but I imagine that in due course he will feel the consequences of his courage. I give great weight to the words of the Deputy-Chairman on this Bill. If we do not pay heed to those words, and if this Instruction is carried, then it seems to me that the whole machinery of Parliament will be put into a very difficult position. I would not like to see this big issue settled this evening on this Bill in view of the fact that these provisions have been given so often in the past to other municipalities. It seems to me that it would be wrong on the part of the House to deal with a large issue of this kind on Clauses in the Reading Corporation Bill. I would prefer that we should have another occasion on which to discuss and decide it, although I do not know how that could be done.
I certainly would be loth to see such a vital issue being dealt with here to-night. I think I am right in saying on behalf of my hon. Friends on these Benches that we, in the main support the municipality in all its activities in this connection We object to hon. Members who support all these provisions when they are in favour of private companies but oppose them when they are sought by municipalities.

Mr. ARTHUR REED: Clause 29 gives power of entry into any premises or any works which have their own supplies of electricity. Can the hon. Member give me an instance of any private enterprise which has powers of that kind?

Mr. DAVIES: I can do no better than refer the hon. Member to the reply just given by the Minister of Transport. I am not the promoter of the Bill, and I repeat that our objection is to hon. Members moving an Instruction on a Bill of this kind, when, as far as our experience goes. when a Bill is being promoted in favour of private enterprise they never object to the same provisions. We say that all the facilities and privileges given to private enterprise in connection with these matters, ought to be given equally to the municipalities.

Mr. CHORLTON: I would like to correct the hon. Member. Our position here bears no relation either to private enterprise or to public authorities. Our stand is purely in protection of the ordinary customer and the ordinary individual, and it is grossly unfair, if I may say so, of my hon. Friend—I call him my hon. Friend because he lives in Manchester—to publish what he said just now and to broadcast it, so to speak, with a view to the effect which it may have later on. Our action is simply and solely on behalf of the ordinary customer, and I am astounded that Labour Members should not stand up for us, instead of conflicting with us as they have done to-night.

8.32 p.m.

Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has misunderstood the position in a way which is quite unusual. Let me put this to him. I represent an electricity supply company, and we should never ask for anything at all which was not to be given in exactly the same way to a corpora
tion. This question has nothing to do with private or public enterprise. It is a question of how the supply company or the corporation, as a supplier of electricity, are to carry on their work properly. There is another point of procedure which is rather important and which I should like to put to the Minister. I gather that the Minister referred to certain Clauses of a Bill which did not become law being passed in this House and certain other Clauses being passed in the other House, and he rather implied that committees would take notice of Clauses so passed in this House and of Clauses so passed in the other House in any decision to which they might come. I venture to point out that taking notice of anything that has occurred in this House which has not become law other than an Instruction such as this would be entirely wrong and that no committee should take notice of anything of the kind.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think that my hon. Friend can have been present when the Deputy-Chairman spoke.

Sir G. ELLIS: I was.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Then my hon. Friend will remember that this was the question which he raised. I said in reply that Parliament would surely not inhibit a petitioner from presenting arguments in favour of these Clauses merely because in a general Bill similar Clauses were rejected.

Sir G. ELLIS: No Committee could take any notice of Clauses which had been passed in this House unless the Bill in question became an Act. When Bills come before the Unopposed Bills Committee, they do not go through automatically. Members of the Unopposed Bills Committee take just as much note of what is in the Bill as if the Bill had been opposed and another Committee were dealing with it. On the merits of this Bill, it is a question of giving the Reading Corporation, with one exception, the right of entry on to private premises over which they really have no control. That, I think, is a question that would be carefully looked into by any Committee, whether the Bill were unopposed or not. But these other applications are nothing more than to enable the corporation, just as a private company, to run its electricity undertaking in such a way as will
be most convenient to all its consumers. Something was said about transformers. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Chorlton) realises that the transformer is a thing that cannot be played with, and that if it is put in one place, it is put there by agreement and can only be used according to the agreements that are made with the person who allowed it to be put there in the first instance. I do not think the hon. Gentleman who moved this Instruction has appreciated the difficulties of electric supply, and he has brought in the Englishman's castle as a sort of excuse to stop a legitimate expansion in the ordinary way.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. GROOM-JOHNSON: I support the Motion in so far as it relates to Clauses 29 and 32. I am not sure that the House quite appreciates what Clause 29 proposes to do. It may be, as the last speaker said, that the promoters of the Bill desire to have certain powers which every electricity undertaking ought to have, but, if so, in my judgment they have gone very far indeed beyond that in the language which is used in this Clause. As the Clause stands, it looks as though it were aimed at providing a kind of search warrant without any of the ordinary safeguards which this House is well aware are usually provided when power to enter premises is given. I find in Clause 29 words which apparently deal with the idea that the corporation may think that there has been some
contravention of any of the Acts or orders applying to the corporation or of any regulation or bye-law made thereunder.
What is that but giving power to the corporation to go upon premises because it suspects that there may have been a contravention of the law, in order that it may obtain for itself the evidence which will justify its taking proceedings under earlier Acts and getting the individual punished? The only safeguard, as far as I can see, which this Clause provides for an individual place in that position, is the statement which follows:
If there is found to be no such contravention the corporation shall refund to the consumer any expenses or loss he may have incurred owing to the cutting off or disconnection of the supply of electricity to the premises.
Thank you, sir, indeed for nothing. That is the provision which this corporation
desires to have, and in what circumstances? In circumstances, according to the language that it has used—whether intentional or not, I do not know—that electric fittings may be there in being, they may not have been installed or they may have been installed. There is nothing in the Clause, as I read it, which prevents the corporation going on premises where there are electric fittings installed, although there is no supply, and, further than that, the very things which it is going to inspect may not even be things which the corporation has let on hire to the consumer whose premises are to be invaded. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who made such an ingenious speech, introducing all sorts of other topics, does not really mean that either a private supplier or a public corporation should be empowered to do anything of the sort which is indicated in this Clause.
There are other comments which I might make upon the Clause, but the House has had them brought before it several times this evening, and I will pass on the Clause 32, which is indeed an astonishing Clause. It presupposes that there is a consumer of electricity who has a special agreement with the corporation That is the first step in the argument, and it starts off by making the corporation the' judge in its own cause as to whether the consumer has committed a breach of the agreement which he has with the corporation. So far as I can see from reading this Clause, there is no remedy against the unfortunate consumer who finds that the corporation takes the view that he has committed a breach of his agreement with it, and then finds his electricity supply gone. It is true that the corporation has to give him notice. and it is true that in paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of the Clause the corporation may not be required to resume the supply until
they are satisfied that any electricity supplied to such consumer will be consumed in accordance with the terms of such agreement.
I suppose that means the terms of such agreement as interpreted by the corporation which put an end to the supply. There is no other provision in the Clause. The next step is:
The consumer has paid to the corporation the sum payable by him pursuant to the foregoing paragraph (b).
The hon. Member for Westhoughton can be assured that nobody wants to protect any consumer unnecessarily who has not paid his due bills, but even he is entitled to some protection. I submit that people should not be allowed to go through his premises, when his supply has been cut off, in order that they may satisfy their curiosity as to what sort of electric fittings of his own he has on the premises, preparatory possibly to manufacturing a supply of his own. The next part of Clause 32 is even more astonishing. It is, indeed, a loosely drafted Clause. It must be remembered that the corporation are under contract to make a special supply under an agreement to a consumer, and Sub-section (2) incorporates the provisions of Section 30 of the Act of 1899. Under that section, if a supply is not given the corporation is limited to pay by way of compensation or penalty to £2 a day. That may conceivably be all very well in dealing with agreements with regard to the future, but Sub-section (2) does not even say that. The language which is used in it is capable of being interpretated as affecting existing agreements between the Corporation of Reading and existing consumers. I hope I have said enough to show that these are matters which certainly merit, either here or elsewhere, the most careful examination.
The last point I desire to make is that it is indeed a lamentable state of affairs if two Clauses like 29 and 32 have hitherto, in 35 cases, passed the vigilance of hon. Members of this House and become the right of other corporations -who are thus enabled, as the result of legislation, to do these very things—

Mr. THORNE: And two or three private companies as well.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Quite possibly, and so much the worse. Is that a reason for going on multiplying the evil? There are some of us who think that there are a, good many invasions of private liberties which are going through this House under private Bill legislation which, owing to the exigencies of business, do not perhaps get examined with the care which sometimes they merit by Members of the House. I submit that the House should
come to a decision upon these Clauses now. It is all very well, when questions of this sort are raised, for Ministers, with the laudable intention of getting public and private business through, to invite us to leave the decision to a Committee upstairs. A great many of us only get our opportunity of raising these questions in the House and not in Committee upstairs, and, inasmuch as this particular matter was examined into on the Electricity Supply Bill of last Session, does not the House think it is a little early to have reached that stage, which the Minister has invited us to reach, when we can have a different view about it?
Of course, the decision of last year cannot bind the House; if it could bind the House, it could not bind it for all time. But is there any good reason why provisions of the type which I have indicated in Clauses 29 and 32 should be allowed to go on the Statute Book merely because in some other cases, too numerous by far, provisions of the same kind have reached the Statute Book? For these reasons, I hope the House will take the view that these Clauses are not such as we ought to permit to be given to particular local authorities, but, if such powers are to be given, they should be given generally to all electricity undertakings, big and little, private and public. The matter could then be properly investigated in a full House or by a Committee upstairs, which could deal with it as a question of principle. Some of us think that this method of introducing localised amendments of the law of the gravity of these Amendments has gone quite far enough, and I hope that my hon. Friends who moved this Instruction will press it to a division.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I am not quite sure that I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) in his closing sentences. He suggested that it was a bad thing to make exceptions by what he termed localising the law. If that were carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean that in no circumstances could there be any deviation from the law which on general principles might be sound. Most of the discussion seems to me to have surrounded the fact that in the Electricity
Supply Act of last year, which was a general enactment, it was decided to omit most of these Clauses. That is not in itself an adequate ground for refusing that proper consideration to the application of any one of these Clauses if the authority desiring the powers can offer sound reasons why they should possess them. Reference was made in a very airy way by the two hon. Members who supported the Instruction to the precedents which have 'already been established. Are we not making a mistake if we do not accept the fact that in 35 or more Bills similar Clauses have been included in similar Measures?
I am not disposed to agree with hon. Gentlemen who suggest that in former Bills there has been any less vigilance than is being shown to-day. It is sufficient to say that, on the 35 previous occasions the committees before which the Bills came gave the most careful consideration to all that is implied by these Clauses. I agree that by picking out one or two Clauses hon. Gentlemen have made a prima facie case which deserves the utmost consideration, and they have done a public service in calling the attention of the House and the committee which will be considering this Bill to them. I disagree, however, when they suggest that the Bill has not been subjected to proper consideration or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Peto) said, that there was any organised opposition. Under the procedure which the Local Government Act of 1933 lays down, a Bill of this kind must not only have the sanction of the corporation, but the approval of the electors. Surely there can be no greater evidence of the Bill being sound than the fact that it has been approved by the local council of Reading, presumably representing the electors, and of the electors themselves. This Bill has gone through that proceeding. Are we, then, because of some temporary difficulty which is involved in our Parliamentary procedure, to say that, we shall deprive the Corporation of Reading of the opportunity of submitting their case and of giving evidence in support of it if necessary? That has been done in all previous cases where these powers have been sought.
I would say to my hon. Friend who moved this Instruction that this is not a question of what he would like to see
done; it is not a question as between municipal and private enterprise. I wondered when I heard my hon. Friends speaking whether they had the right idea about local authorities. Why should they assume that these bodies, to whom Parliament entrusts more and more powers, are exercising those powers unwisely? I believe the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) said that he was trying to protect the ordinary average person. In some of the Clauses which he himself quoted the average person is protected by the very powers which are given to the corporation. The grant of those very powers might act as a deterrent. I was not at all terrified by the dreadful picture drawn by my hon. Friends sitting opposite. Not only have local authorities responsibilities, but they have a very high regard for those responsibilities, and they know that if they treat any of their consumers unreasonably the representatives of the latter on the council will bring them to book. With every respect, I suggest that the House would be making a mistake if it did not give the Reading Corporation the opportunity of presenting the reasons why they want these powers and, if necessary, submitting evidence to the Committee.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am on this occasion supporting the municipality, partly because I still recollect with pleasure the time when I represented Reading in this House, and partly because I agree with the purport of these Clauses. I was a Member of the Committee upstairs which considered the Electricity Supply Bill, and if that Bill had not been wrecked, or, rather, prevented from passing, a great deal of expenditure would have been saved to a great many electricity undertakers, both company and municipal, because the powers already obtained by a number of companies and municipalities would have been generalised. I take a fairly active part on municipal and other private Bills, in conjunction very often with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). We both object to the general law being altered by an odd Clause in a private Bill. We think that a general principle ought to find its place in a general public Act. Last year an attempt was made to pass a public general Act which would
have given these powers to all corporations. That effort was wrecked through the ingenious opposition of two of the hon. Members who have spoken to-night, with certain of their colleagues who will no doubt also speak. I remember listening to their speeches, and I was amazed not at what they knew about the Bill but at what they did not know, because they excited fears by their references to these dreadful new powers of entry, entirely overlooking the fact that for 53 years electricity undertakers in this country have had these rights of entry.
Years ago people apparently did not contemplate that there would grow up the great business of supplying electrical apparatus, and that very often consumers of electricity would buy their own apparatus and arrange for its installation, and therefore, in 1882, electricity undertakers were not given the powers which they automatically would have been given if people had contemplated those developments. It is perfectly absurd that if I have in my house a piece of apparatus on hire-purchase from electricity undertakers they should have the right to inspect it, but that if I purchase my own apparatus from a shop and have it installed they have no right to inspect it, though it may be so defective that a serious breakdown may occur, affecting the supply of electricity to the whole district. It is only reasonable that there should be a proper right of entry. I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with those who officially represent the corporation, and they realise, quite frankly, that there are certain errors of drafting, in Clauses 29 and 32. If it had not been for what I call the error of drafting in Clause 29 hon. Members opposite would not have been able to make their speeches. Nearly everything in their speeches was based on the assumption that Clause 29 as it stands makes it possible to enter premises with which the corporation has no electrical connection. I am satisfied that was not the intention of the corporation.

Mr. G. PETO: Does my hon. Friend realise that those identical words are in a, Bill we adopted last summer and to which we strongly objected? They are repeated here in exactly the same form. It is no case of error on the part of the draftsman, it is deliberate intention.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My hon. Friend's recollection of what happened last summer is a little defective. I have the Bill as originally presented. Clause 8 of that Bill states that the powers conferred by Section 24 of the Electric Light Act of 1882 shall extend
to enable any undertakers to enter any premises to which electricity is or has been supplied by them.
Those are entirely different words from the words he has criticised to-night. It is a little unfortunate that my hon. Friend did not read with sufficient care the Bill we were considering last summer before he made his speech to-night and before he indulged in his recent interruption.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I have the Bill as it passed Standing Committee. It is Clause 5 in that Bill, and the words there are the same as in the Reading Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The words to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Peto) is objecting are precisely what he himself consented to as a Member of the Committee examining the Bill.

Mr. PETO: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Well, there it is. It passed the Committee upstairs, and I have no recollection that he raised that particular point. That Bill underwent considerable modification, very largely to please the hon. Member and in a vain effort to conciliate him.

Mr. PETO: May I remind the House that there was a mass of Amendments to which we strongly protested, both upstairs and downstairs, and that Mr. Speaker objected that the Bill had been so muddled by the promoters, including the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that it was quite unintelligible. Now we are told that the words were in and that I did not object to them. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member was objecting to this House giving sanction to a Clause in a private Bill because it was on the lines of a Clause which the House as a whole had refused to accept. The interesting thing is that these words which he is now criticising—I agree that the Bill underwent substantial modification, and also that the words in the form as amended in Com
mittee are too wide—actually passed the Committee upstairs, and were not challenged on Report stage in the House.

Mr. PETO: There was a long debate on the question of allowing people not supplying electricity to enter factories and an Amendment was moved and carried to exclude factories. The only thing it did not exclude was private houses.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is my hon. Friend quite right in saying the Amendment was carried?

Mr. PETO: Yes.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am speaking from recollection, but my recollection is that there was only one vote one way or the other.

Mr. PETO: There was only one vote and one issue, and we won it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My recollection is that the Amendment was beaten by one vote

Mr. PETO: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think so, but I speak subject to recollection. We can all have an opportunity of looking it up in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I think the proposal to which the hon. Member referred to justify his attitude was an Amendment which was, in fact, beaten by the critical majority of one. In any event the words as they stand are too wide. I have had an opportunity of making contact with the representatives of the corporation, who are in the precincts of the House, and prior to this debate their attention had been drawn to the wide manner in which paragraph (a) is drawn and it was already their intention to modify it and to make it clear that they did not intend it to have that wide signification. In Clause 32 there is also some drafting which, I think, is not satisfactory. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (2) on page 24 they will see these words:
unless the provisions of that section are expressly excluded from application in any such agreement.
Then it goes on to refer to what will happen if the corporation fail to supply energy. The wording is certainly ambiguous. It is not clear to what extent
the words which I have read out qualify the remainder of the Sub-section, but it is obvious that, it needs modification in order to make the meaning perfectly clear. I rather gather that it is felt that those words should be left out wherever they appear, and that there should be a proviso at the end. That would make the grammar much better. That is a matter to which the attention of the corporation has been drawn and to which they were also contemplating an amendment if and when the Bill appeared before the Committee upstairs. In view of the fact that the only two matters of substance which have been raised to-night are matters of detail where the wording was quite frankly unfortunate, and where it was intended that it should be put right, I hope that the House will reject the Motion and will let the Bill go upstairs so that those errors of drafting may be remedied.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. A. REED: I want to be perfectly clear about Clause 29 (1). The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) says that this is a drafting error, but, as the words stand in the Clause, any supplier of electricity in the area can go into a factory even though it makes its own electric current and runs it independently of any corporation, and even if it is making goods by secret process. There is no doubt about that, and it does not seem to have been a slip. I would refer to the explanation which was sent out by the Reading Corporation:
The object is to enable the corporation to enter premises for inspecting electrical apparatus, whether belonging to the corporation or not, in order to see that the enactments applicable are not contravened.
That means that they could go into the factory and inspect the apparatus, although they did not supply any current. We already have a system of factory inspection whereby a strict inspection is made of all electrical apparatus to see that it complies with the law. Therefore, these words are unnecessary. If we can have it made perfectly clear that the corporation will not seek powers to go into factories or private houses to which they are not supplying electricity—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: ; So far as I know, from conversations with representatives of the corporation, that is what they intend.

Mr. REED: That will meet my objection.

Mr. G. PETO: In view of the assurance given by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the information which was given to us by the Deputy-Chairman of Committees that the points which we have raised will be fully considered in Committee—they are points to which we attach very great importance—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Captain BOURNE: I can only give an assurance on condition that the Bill comes before the Unopposed Committee. I am not in a position to say any more than if it comes before the Unopposed Committee we will give great attention to the points raised.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,146,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for a Grant to the Cattle Fund.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,146,200, be granted for the said Service."

9.11 p.m.

Mr. PALING: We were told that the cattle industry was in such a parlous state that unless this subsidy were given, entirely for the benefit of the producers of cattle, the cattle industry would go out of operation. I wish to put one or two questions to the Minister about that, because it was a rather serious statement. The Minister is aware that the producer is getting only a portion of the subsidy and, in the opinion of a number of people, only a small portion. Has the Minister tried to ascertain how much of the subsidy is actually going to the people to whom it was intended? In one or two other schemes for which the Minister has been responsible—the wheat scheme, for instance—there is a committee of inquiry, and I think the same is also true of the
milk marketing scheme. Is it likely that we shall also have a committee of inquiry to find out whether this money has gone where it should have gone—to the cattle producer? In the words of the Prime Minister, are we to appoint somebody to inquire into the consequences of the consequences? We ought to know the answer to that question before this Committee is required to pass this money which, in the Minister's own words, was intended for people in an industry which was on the verge of bankruptcy. The Minister admits that those people are not getting it, and we are therefore entitled to know who is getting it, and whether he is taking any measures to ascertain who is getting it.
It was admitted on a previous occasion that a committee appointed in regard to the subsidy had carried out their duties in a very satisfactory manner. I see a statement before us in regard to salaries for those people, and a figure of £26,140. There is a figure of £11,000 for office and administration expenses. I would like to know whether those people are engaged merely in paying money to the producers or whether they have any responsibility in getting to know where the money goes after they have paid it out. Is the £11,000 paid merely on the basis of administering the subsidy to the producers and no further notice is taken, or have those people, who are in an Office upon which a considerable amount of money is spent, any responsibility not only in paying the money out but in seeing where it has gone? Lastly, can the Minister tell us how many people are employed in the administration?

9.15 p.m.

Major HILLS: I would point out that the largest part of this money has been spent already, so that it is no use inquiring about it now, and the whole Act will come to an end on the 30th June next. It would be putting rather a heavy burden on the official of the Ministry if, after he has carried out his duty under the Act and paid the 5s. to the producer, we were to say that he should enter into an economic and mathematical calculation in order to inform the country and the House where the 5s. has gone to. It has been paid to the producer—there is no doubt about that; it has not been misapplied; but has the price that he receives been so far reduced that as a matter
of fact the 5s. gives no advantage to the farmer? I think that that is the real question.
From inquiries that I made, I found that at the beginning of the subsidy period the farmers thought that the butcher was getting it, but towards the end I found a change of opinion, and they thought that anyhow part of it, in some cases a substantial part, was going to the stock-raiser. I think that that is understandable in the case of a falling market, and prices have fallen very fast during the last two or three years. It is quite possible that the fall which has occurred was a natural fall which was not entirely stayed by the subsidy. Anyhow, farmers who were paid the subsidy on a falling market, when prices were lower than before would be the last people who would be inclined to think that they had got the subsidy if they had not; and yet I found farmers who, in spite of the fact that they were receiving a lower price, still thought that part of the subsidy had come to them. Their complaint against the subsidy was that it unduly favoured the farmer who had beasts ready for the market, for the fanner who was caught with a large amount of very young stock could not bring forward those animals in time to sell them in the market and gain the subsidy. The subject is a very wide one, and I do not want to dogmatise; I can only repeat what I am told; but I think that on the whole the stock-raiser did benefit, and in some cases to a substantial amount.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: It strikes me as rather extraordinary that, after these large sums of money have been freely voted, most of the discussion should now be as to whether the money has actually reached the people for whom it was voted.
I was not fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir Dennis, in the previous Debate, and I am not sure whether what I am about to suggest will be in order, but I will make my effort, and no doubt I shall be pulled up if necessary. I should like to put this point to the Minister, as reflecting the view, not only of hon. Friends of mine on these benches, but also of stock-raisers in my division, which is one of the most important beef-fattening districts in Scotland. They are at the moment, and have been for the
last year, carrying on from stage to stage without knowing what is going to happen to them a reasonable time—say six months—ahead. This additional subsidy takes them on for a further three months, and there is a possibility of their being taken on for three months after that, but what we on these benches and the farmers are concerned about is as to what is the scheme behind this—in what plan this scheme finds a place.
The Minister has already given us an assurance that he has no intention of expanding unduly the production of meat in this country, but up to what point is production to be allowed? The farmers whom I represent want to know whether it is wise to increase their production of meat or to decrease it. The policy which one hopes will be adopted, after conference with the Dominions, will be to lay down a method of maintaining prices, and I think all of us would welcome that; but for what amount of cattle are prices to be maintained? I am concerned to know what is the object of our agricultural policy, and I would like to put to the Minister a suggestion made to him, I think, in the "Times" a few days ago, that for the benefit of us all, and particularly of meat producers, he should issue at some time soon a White Paper setting out, in the broadest outline if he likes, the aims that he has for agriculture as a whole, and especially for meat as one section of agriculture. I think it is essential that we should know that. At the moment we go from milestone to milestone, but we are never very sure what town we are making for, or how far away it is. Agriculture demands, and is entitled to have before it, some clear objective. Meat production fits in from day to day with other sides of agriculture. It is only one part of a whole—in Scotland much the most important part—but the other things depend upon it, and, if we are not clear as to the object of this all-important part, the other sections are affected, and there is a general tendency to reduce the vitality of the whole industry.
I do not know whether the Minister can give any reply to that question now. During the Scottish Debate I addressed the same kind of question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I asked him where we were going, and. I said to him then that I supported these demands because I was in
formed that they were emergency demands. I suppose I shall continue to vote for emergency regulations, but there is in my mind a feeling of uneasiness. The Minister must have the same feeling of uneasiness in his own mind. Representing a division which is, I should say, almost 100 per cent. behind the Government, I can ask, as a friend of the Government, for some guidance as to the general objective that we are to have in mind. I am sure that it would be to the Minister's advantage to prepare a White Paper. It would certainly be to the advantage of agriculture, and it would make those on this side of the House supporters, not only of emergency regulations, but of carefully planned steps towards one objective. I beg the Minister, either to-night or at some very near future date, to give us a reply on these points.

9.25 p.m.

Colonel Sir EDWARD RUGGLES-BRISE: I just want to say a word on this vexed question as to who has received the subsidy which the House is now Toeing asked to continue. In my view, there is not the slightest doubt that it has gone where Parliament intended it to go, that is to say into the pockets of the producer, and helped him to get back a portion of his cost of production. At the time when the subsidy came into operation on 1st September last year, there happened to be a rapidly falling market for fat stock. As the Minister stated, the fall had been going on for years, and the coming into operation of the subsidy last autumn did not, in my view, affect the situation of that general fall in prices one way or the other.
The fall was accentuated at that particular time by an act of Providence. We had a very dry summer, and beasts which purported to have been fattened on marshes and pastures were coming on to the market not in that same finished condition in which they usually do arrive on the market at that time of the year. That was purely a seasonal accident, but it had the effect that these animals which were not so well finished as usual did come on to the fat stock markets and accentuated the fall in price already going on through the law of supply and demand. The real reason for the fall in the price level of fat stock which has been going on so long has been the old economic
law of supply and demand. There has been a larger supply than there has been a demand. I think the right way to look at the question of whether the subsidy has reached the pocket of the producer or not is to look at it the other way round. Had it not been for the subsidy, undoubtedly the producer of fat stock in this country would have been 5s. per cwt. worse off than he has been during the last five months.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure that we are all indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) for his business-like speech. I do not think that any practical man in the House or outside doubts that if the subsidy had not been given the producer of fat stock would have been 5s. per cwt. worse off than before. I was asked if the money has gone to the producer. Of course, it goes to the producer. I am asked how it goes to the producer. It goes in the most practical way possible of giving money; it is put into his hand. I was also asked whether the administrator took any steps afterwards to see what the producer did with the money. The answer is "No." We take no further responsibility after the money is paid into the man's hand. It is put into his hand, and the administrator could no more follow it up than the owners of a coal mine could follow up the miner's wages after he has drawn them. There is a great deal of interference with all things before we get them, but we resent it very much if anybody presumes to interfere with us after we get them.
The subsidy of 5s. has been of great advantage to the livestock producer in this country, and had it not been for the money voted by this House undoubtedly fat stock producers would have been very much worse off. In the early months the producer got the subsidy and got a rise in prices as well. I have had taken out the prices month by month. On 5th September the market price for beef was 3s. above what it had been in the previous year, so that the producer was then getting the 5s. subsidy and the 3s. rise in price. On 4th October the price was still 4d. above what it was at that time the previous year, so that the producer got the 5s. plus the 4d. On 1st November the price was 6d. below what it had been the previous year, so that with the sub
sidy the producer was still getting 4s. 6d. more. On 6th December the price was 1s. 8d. below what it had been the previous year, so that the producer was 3s. 4d. up. On 3rd January the price was 2s. 9d. below what it had been the previous year, so that the producer was still 2s. 3d. up. When I am told by some hon. Members that after Parliament has voted these considerable sums we still do not know whether they go to the producers or not, I can say that these figures clearly show that in the early stages more than all these grants went to the producer and that in the later stages a considerable sum has still gone to him.
One or two specific questions were put to me by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) which I should briefly answer. I do not intend to set up any committee of inquiry because this is a temporary Act. The hon. Member asked whether the administrators had any further responsibility after the money was paid over, and the answer is in the negative. He also asked how many people were employed, and the answer is 202. That I think deals with all the points which have been raised, except for certain matters raised by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) who asked if I could issue not merely a White Paper showing the general bearing of policy, which is what was asked for by the "Times," but a further thing only asked for by himself, namely, a categorical list of how much agricultural produce should be produced in this country for several years to come. Did I understand the hon. Member rightly? Is that what he is seriously asking for?

Mr. H. STEWART: That is not exactly what I said. I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would not give producers in broad outline the total volume of production to which agriculture in this country should start.

Mr. ELLIOT: It must be not only a broad, but a fairly correct outline. It is not enough to say that I should like about 100,000,000 gallons of milk or 300,000,000 gallons of milk produced. I must give a correct estimate. If I had done that a year or two ago, the hon. Gentleman's beet-sugar factory would not have had any beet. It would have been very easy to give such a categorical list
including how much beet-sugar acreage there was to be in the United Kingdom. But then his factory would have been cut out altogether.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): We really cannot go into the question of beet-sugar.

Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife several times looked very tentatively towards the Chair when he was speaking, but he was not pulled up, and I took that as an indication that I was expected to follow him into the extremely wide field of discussion that he raised. I hear with delight and joy the ruling that I should be out of order in going into it, because I am quite sure that to set up categorical lists of how much the producer is expected to produce would be immediately followed by demands for a great many other equally detailed estimates, and I fear that the most enthusiastic of planners might break down before such a scheme. I think it is clear that the Committee is desirous of helping the agricultural industry; that on the whole it desires that this time should continue to be afforded while we continue this exploration. I hope very much that the Committee will now see fit to give us the Committee stage of the Vote.

9.36 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I should like to say a word about the argument that the right hon. Gentleman has just put forward as regards all this money getting to the farmer. He seems to think, first of all, that a sufficient proof that the farmer is benefiting to the extent of 5s. a cwt. is the fact that you pay the money into his own hand. Surely he will admit, as he did in the latter part of his argument, that if he gets a lower price by reason of getting the 5s. he is not really getting the benefit of the 5s. at all.

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think anyone suggested that he is getting a lower price by reason of getting the subsidy.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not sure. What did the right hon. Gentleman himself say? He said that in September by reason of this policy he was not only getting this 5s. but an extra 3s.; in October he was getting not only the 5s.
but an extra 4d., whereas in January he was only getting 2s. 3d.

Mr. ELLIOT: I certainly said there had been a fall in these prices extending not only over one year but four, and that the subsidy had not succeeded in arresting that fall. But that is a different thing from saying it was responsible for it. If it has been responsible for it now, what was responsible for the fall during the three years when there was no subsidy being paid?

Sir S. CRIPPS: That is a very easy question to answer. What was responsible was the law of supply and demand. The right hon. Gentleman said his subsidy in September was responsible not only for giving the farmer 5s. more but also 3s. in addition, and I was quarrelling with the proposition of these figures that he gave us for each month to prove how the farmer had benefited. What is the purpose of giving us the figures otherwise?

Mr. ELLIOT: I never said the subsidy was responsible for the rise in price over and above the subsidy. How could I have said such a thing? If I did, I apologise for giving so false an impression. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman bring his powerful intelligence down to the question whether the fall was or was not due to the subsidy which I understand was the argument that he was advancing.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman had given us these detailed figures with some purpose. I now understand that he did not; they mean nothing, and therefore we can dismiss them.

Mr. ELLIOT: rose—

Sir S. CRIPPS: I want to get two consecutive sentences without an interruption from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. ELLIOT: Then why ask a question?

Sir S. CRIPPS: I was not asking any question, I said it was a pity that he troubled his clerks to get out these detailed figures as they are apparently of no use whatever. [Interruption.] If they are of use to the rest of the House, I do not understand the right hon.
Gentleman's argument. What I understand him to say now with his great intellect which, as we know surpasses that of any others in the House—I do not deny that proposition—is that the farmer has benefited to the extent of 5s. in each of the months from September to February irrespective of the fall in price. I hope that I have the right answer at last.

Mr. ELLIOT: I hesitate to interrupt; I do not know whether these questions are purely rhetorical or whether the hon. and learned Gentleman really desires an answer. I will sit down in a moment if he does not desire an answer.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I desire it.

Mr. ELLIOT: We are again at one. We are frequently at one in this discussion. The farmer all through all these months has been 5s. better off than he would have been if there had been no subsidy.

Sir S. CRIPPS: At last we have an answer which hitherto I understand the right hon. Gentleman had been unable to give us. When we were discussing the matter earlier, he said he could not say where the money had gone but that a great part of it had gone into the farmer's pocket. Now he says that the whole of the 5s. throughout the whole of the period has gone into the farmer's pocket. Is that right? The right hon. Gentleman has a difficulty in answering.

Mr. ELLIOT: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to be interrupted?

Sir S. CRIPPS: Yes.

Mr. ELLIOT: Good. I say that in each of these months the farmer was 5s. better off than he would have been had there been no subsidy, although in each of the successive months he has been subject to general adverse conditions and a falling market.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the speech that he made when the matter was passing through the House in another stage he will find that he then said he could not say that the farmer had got the benefit of all the subsidy, though in the earlier months he got most of it.. I understand that since then he has had some further information, no doubt from his staff,
which is an extremely competent one, which now leads him to say as a responsible Minister in asking for these £2,000,000 that the farmer has got the whole of the subsidy throughout the whole of the period without any deduction whatsoever by the middle man or anyone else. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to deny it?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is very difficult to get these points home to one who is so inexperienced as a stock-breeder. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that during all this time the farmer was continuously subjected to adverse influences and to a falling market. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise the bearing of that on the rest of my remarks.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not claim at the moment to be much of a stock-breeder. Unfortunately, I had that experience in the past, but I had to give it up. [An HON. MEMBER: "Because of the falling market!"] Because of the falling market. Unfortunately I never survived into the period of the National Government or I might perhaps have gone on indefinitely as long as Parliament was prepared to vote millions to the farmers. Now we again hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he can guarantee that the whole of this 5s. has been received throughout the whole of the period by the farmer and has not gone into any other pocket. That, I agree, is a very satisfactory declaration for him to be able to make.

Mr. ELLIOT: It is also not what I said.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am in the greatest difficulty. Though I may not be a stock-breeder I am accustomed to asking people questions, and I know that in asking some people questions it is extremely difficult to get a concise and definite answer to them. But I am bound to assume—because it would not be right to delay the Committee with any further cross-examination—that the whole of this 5s. has gone into the pockets of the farmer every month during the whole of the period and that no one else has benefited by it. If that be so, I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what the right hon. Gentleman's policy is. He says this fall in price is due to the law of supply and demand irrespective of the subsidy which has had no effect at all
upon that law of supply and demand. It has not caused people to send more beasts into the market than they would otherwise. If that had happened, one could have understood this fall in price. Does he then say that the supply at present is too great? I presume he must. That would account for the falling prices. He now proposes that we should apply a subsidy to keep up this too great supply. That seems to me to be very bad planning.

Mr. ELLIOT: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read my earlier speech with the attention that he has devoted to some of it, he would realise that I said there had been a diminished and not an increased supply and therefore we considered it advisable and justifiable to go on with the present policy.

9.45 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Whatever the estimates were, we are dealing with the expenditure of money which is to be expended, I understand, over the next few months, up to the end, I take it, of the financial year. The present supplementary estimate, I imagine, will last us to the end of the present financial year, and we shall not have another supplementary before the end of the financial year. During that period it now seems, from the general trend of prices, which, incidentally, he has told us has been going on for three years in exactly the same way, so that it is nothing new, there is too great a supply, and that is why the price is falling. In spite of that, he proposes to give a subsidy in order to encourage too great a supply to continue. That is the effect of the subsidy. We find prices falling, and, under ordinary processes, it would theoretically cut off supply. That is how capitalism regulates supply. When prices fall to a certain level, production becomes unremunerative, and therefore production is lessened. I think that is the orthodox capitalist creed.

Mr. ELLIOT: Not the orthodox farmers' creed.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I thought the farmer was a very orthodox capitalist. I think that the farmers look upon the right hon. Gentleman, from what I have heard from them, as a very unorthodox capitalist. The fall in price shows, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, that there is too great a supply. He agrees with me there does
he not? I should not like to think that I was misrepresenting him, and that is why I give him every opportunity to interrupt me if he thinks I am wrong. I see that he thinks that I am right in saying that it indicates too great a supply. The House of Commons is being asked in these circumstances not to do something to limit the supply which the right hon. Gentleman would like to do, but to do something to encourage the supply. That is to say, insead of letting the low price regulate the supply to a lower level, he is keeping up the price by putting on the subsidy so as to continue a great supply.
In those circumstances, surely he must see that he will be continuing the great supply, and will be making the necessity for the continued payment by this House of a continued subsidy if the price continues to fall by this natural law operating for three years, and which since last September has brought the price down to something like 6s. It seems to us that it is a most Mad Hatter type of economics altogether, merely to throw away into the pool, as it were, a large sum of money without any real policy behind it, and without knowing whether your supply is right, and without making any plans for your supply to meet demand, or for demand to meet your supply, is something which we can neither encourage nor vote for.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I should not like the hon. and learned Gentleman to be under any misapprehension. I did not think that be was likely to vote for us on this occasion. The Committee is quite clear as to one reason why the right hon. Gentleman lost money in farming, and why he gave up stock breeding. If he did not know anything more than what he knows now, I am not surprised that he lost money. He has gone on the assumption that I am going to subsidise all the market. He did not get that idea from me. Do not supplies come from outside, and are not these the supplies which are being regulated, to which the quota applies, and the supplies which had increased and which are not being subsidised. If so, what becomes of the whole case of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Absolutely nothing, and for that reason we should be quite pleased
to have him vote against us on this occasion.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. YOUNG: One concludes from this little dialogue that there is a special system of mathematics attaching to the stock-raising industry, just as there is special book-keeping by farmers. It has been said that it is in Sussex that the best farmers can be found. It is said that sometimes in one year a farmer makes £500 profit, and the next year £200, and that he goes round the markets telling people that he has lost £300 that year. We who represent industry more than agriculture wonder sometimes whether the farmer is as badly off as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister attempts to paint him. We have listened for a long time to the right hon. Gentleman who has spent much ingenuity in pointing out the impossibility of their making both ends meet. We wonder sometimes when we see them in the market tumbling over each other to buy cattle, and remember how much advantage they have had already from the Government in the form of different subsidies, whether they are entitled to any more at the expense, in the long run, of people who live in the industrial areas. The farmer has been the spoilt pet of the nation for many years past. To begin with, he pays no rates except upon his house.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman seems now to be making a speech more appropriate to a general Debate than to the Amendment.

Mr. YOUNG: As the industrial population largely pays this subsidy, I think that we have a right to know, first of all, what becomes of the money which is voted for the farming industry. I listened to a good part of the first speech of the right hon. Gentleman and he suggested, as part of his mathematical calculations, that whatever happened to the wholesale prices, they were not reflected to any considerable extent in retail prices. He used the figure of 70 per cent. wholesale as being reflected only to the extent of 10 per cent. in retail prices. Consequently, as his argument set out to prove, it made very little difference to the consumer as far as prices were concerned. We can only say that if that be true, the retailer before that was making such an
excessive profit that he could afford to cut his profit to the extent of 50 per cent. on the calculation which the right hon. Gentleman himself made. If that be so, there is a very strong case against the granting of the concession of the subsidy as proposed now until we know exactly what is to become of it, and what big share the middleman gets out of it. One of the Northern newspapers has reported to-day that the leaders of the miners' union approached the coal miners at Newcastle, and asked them if they would join forces with them to enable them to get a subsidy from the State for the miners. One can see the force of that argument, because the leader of the deputation representing the miners pointed out that the Government have granted £75,000,000 in subsidies during recent years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is again getting away from the actual Amendment.

Mr. YOUNG: I used that only as an illustration. I can understand the very narrow limitations. The point I want to make is this: Are not we who have to pay these subsidies entitled to make these objections? Whether the subsidy is large

or small, it is undoubtedly paid by people who have to consume beef. If it is passed in the name of a subsidy it is simply a slight form of protection against which even Conservatives were revolting very vocally a few years ago. It was only about two years ago that the Lord President of the Council, in a speech he made in London, said that the reason why they did not like a duty on meat was because no one duty on meat could be effective; it would be futile and a humbug. Lord Hailsham expressed similar views. We say that while we are victims of a protectionist system, whether by way of subsidies or anything else, we are entitled to make a protest against this further grant to the farming interest, which has already had far more than it has been entitled to. It has received grants out of all proportion to the service which it renders to the nation. We have to make our protest by opposing the Government on this Vote, as we have opposed them previously.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,146,200 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 148.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[9.57 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Rea, Walter Russell


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Bernaye, Robert
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cleary, J. J.
Leonard, William
West, F. R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Macdonald, Gordon (ince)
White, Henry Graham


Cripps, Sir Stafford
McEntee, valentine L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Nathan, Major H. L.
Mr. John and Mr. Paling.


Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen



NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burnett, John George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Eastwood, John Francis


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conant, R. J. E.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cook, Thomas A.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Fermoy, Lord


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Craven-Ellis, William
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Crooke, J. Smedley
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Boulton, W. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Ganzonl. Sir John


Bower, Commander Robert Talton
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Davles, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Gower, Sir Robert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Doran, Edward
Greene, William P. C.


Gretton, Colonel Bt. Hon. John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margetton, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mayhew, Lleut.-Colonel John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Headiam, Lleut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mills, Major J. D, (New Forest)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer.ties)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Hills, Major Bt. Hon. John Waller
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Munro, Patrick
Soper, Richard


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stevenson, James


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
O'Connor, Terence James
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stones, James


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, Edward A.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Pearson, William G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Knight, Holford
Penny, Sir George
Sutcliffe, Harold


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Petherick, M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pike, Cecil V. 
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Levy. Thomas
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Tree, Ronald


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)
Tulnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Liewellin, Major John J.
Romer, John R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rickards, George William
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Ropner, Colonel L.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mabans, William
Ross, Ronald D.
Womersley, Sir Walter


MacAndrew, Lleut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)



McCorquodale. M. S.
Rothschild, Jamet A. de
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Sir Frederick Thompson and Mr.


McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Blindell.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)



Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceding £602,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Grants in Aid of the general administrative and other expenses of the Herring Industry Board and the Herring Fund Advances Account.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I hope that we shall have an explanation of this Vote from the Secretary of State.

10.6 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): On several occasions during recent weeks the House has addressed itself to the question of the herring industry but in view of the appeal of the hon. Member let me say that this estimate is to provide during the current financial year grants in aid of the general administrative and other expenses of the Herring Industry Board and the Herring Fund Advances Account, which will be set up when the Bill which received a Third Reading in this House last Friday becomes an Act. The main item in the Vote is under sub-head (c), £600,000, which is provided for the purpose of making available in 1935 and the four succeeding years advances to the Herring Board for the purpose of making loans for the reconditioning and re-equipment of boats, the construction of
new boats, the purchase of redundant boats, the making of loans in connection with the export of herring and the undertaking of operations involving the outlay of working capital. So far as the amount of £600,000 is concerned the estimate is a first step. If the Bill becomes law a sum of £600,000 will be paid into the Herring Fund Advances Account, which will be held by the Treasury. Money will be made available for advances to the Herring Board in the years 1935–9 by further Estimates. In the present financial year the sum of £1,000, under sub-head (a) is to meet administration expenses which may be incurred by the Board. The estimate also enables the Board to spend certain sums of money in a survey of boats and making enquiries in connection with the export of herring. With these few words I hope the estimate will commend itself to the Committee. When the Bill has passed into law, the Board set up and the scheme in operation, this sum will be available for the Board, to be used for the express purpose of helping our fishermen in this industry.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: I notice that a sum of £200,000, but no more, is to be applied for the purposes of making loans in connection with the export of herring and operations involving the outlay of working capital, leaving a balance of £400,000 for the purchase of redundant boats and
the making of loans for the reconditioning and the re-equipment of boats and the purchase of nets. I should like to know how this £400,000 is going to be apportioned. The gears of a herring fishing vessel runs into a considerable sum, and the purchase of redundant boats is likely to make a considerable inroad in that sum. I should like to have a more explicit statement as to the manner in which this amount will be dealt with. I take it that the £1,000 for the Herring Board is to enable it to make a survey of markets and to find out the number of redundant boats. We are entitled to know whether the scheme to be applied will be anything of the same character as is now in operation in the National Shipbuilding Securities, which, of course, is not under Government control. There must be some method to find out what boats are redundant. It seems rather contradictory that new boats should have to be built when there are redundant boats which must be removed. It is rather contradictory that we should be asked to find money to purchase boats which are said to be in excess of the number required and at the same time have to purchase new boats for the herring industry.
I should have thought that the law of supply and demand might have been allowed to operate here, just as the cruisers under the control of the Fishery Board in Scotland ought to have been allowed to go out of control through old age and lack of speed. These are matters which should be explained. How are the Government to decide what is a redundant boat? Are boats to be considered redundant because they are too old for service in the fleet? If they are considered too old for service why should money be paid to remove them? If they are out of date they should not be looked upon as redundant boats. As I understand it, redundancy means something that is unnecessary because there is already a plentiful supply of that very thing, not something which is merely too old but something of which there is already too much. There should, therefore, be no necessity to set aside money for building new vessels. The note says specifically, on page 21, that the purpose for which this sum is to be voted is:
(a) the making of loans for the reconditioning and re-equipment of boats, for the construction of new boats or the purchase of
nets or boats, and (b) the purchase of redundant boats.
We want an explanation of these points.

10:17 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to raise a point, not so much with the Minister, as with you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. It seems to me to be an extraordinary thing that the Government should ask the Committee for a sum of £600,000 before they have any statutory authority for doing so. In my experience of this House I cannot remember this having been done before. The Government ask for £600,000 to carry out the provisions of certain legislation which is not yet on the Statute Book. I am aware that a financial resolution has been passed, but that is no authority, as far as I know, until the legislation governing it is also passed. I congratulate the Scottish Office on having, for once, got ahead of the Treasury, but as a Member of the House I question very much whether it would not be a, serious dereliction of duty for the Committee to grant to the Government the right to spend money before the Government have any statutory authority for doing so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was not quite clear whether the hon. Gentleman was putting a point of Order to me or making observations in general to the Committee. If he has put a point of Order to me, I can only say that there are several precedents for this course of action. One of the most recent and one of the most striking was in the case of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, which was promoted by a Government of which, I think, the hon. Member was a supporter. In that case a Supplementary Estimate was passed before the Act received the Royal Assent.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry that I did not quite catch the end of your Ruling.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In the case to which I have referred a Supplementary Estimate was passed and acted upon six months before the Act received the Royal Assent. There are plenty of precedents for the course taken to-day.

Mr. MAXTON: I can only say that I regret that there are precedents for that sort of thing even supposing they were set by a Labour Government. I think the House of Commons ought to be very careful of retaining its control over expenditure by Governments. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] Having heard that round of applause, I am pondering over what I have just said to see whether I have made any mistake. I assure the Committee I am not preaching economy but merely wise expenditure. The point which I wished to make was this. Since the Minister is demanding this power so urgently and since he is likely to get the power to spend this money before the legislation comes into operation, may I ask him to reconsider the statement which he made on previous occasions in regard to anticipating the full operation of the Measure by assisting the men to get their boats ready for this year's fishing season.
When questioned on that matter previously the right hon. Gentlemen said it would be impossible for him to anticipate matters by advancing money to the fishermen for the reconditioning of their boats. The right hon. Gentleman is now to get his £600,000, apparently in advance of his statutory rights. Having regard to that fact, I suggest that he might consider rushing matters a little so that the men who are supposed ultimately to benefit from this legislation and this procedure should get some of the benefit immediately instead of having to look forward to a hopeless year. The men engaged in the herring industry in Scotland have bad years in front of them. They have now got legislation which is supposed to confer benefits on them and I would ask him to expedite the matter just as he has expedited this Supplementary Estimate, so that the advantages of the scheme, if there are advantages, shall come to the fishermen during the year 1935 and not during some year in the dim and distant future.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY: I have risen to put a question to the Minister because, like the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I feel we ought to make sure that the House of Commons retains control over expenditure by Parliament. I draw the Minister's attention to these words on page 21 of the estimate:
Expenditure out of the grant-in-aid under sub-heads A and B will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I believe it has been the custom in the case of grants-in-aid that the Accountant and Auditor-General should not be called
upon to audit the accounts in detail, but the present case seems to be different from other cases for the following reasons. Under paragraph (a), on page 20, there is authority to spend up to £75,000 on general administrative expenditure. Under paragraph (b) there is authority to spend—

Dr. ADDISON: On a point of Order. On Friday last two Amendments were accepted by the Government under which these accounts were to be submitted to the Auditor-General. If that be so, I take it that the form of the explanation on the Paper is now out of order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is probably the case. I think the Estimate was presented before the House passed the Report and Third Reading stages, and that the Amendment made on the Report stage has not been incorporated in the Estimate.

Mr. ALBERY: On that point of Order. I had not the advantage of being present when that Amendment was accepted, but I rather gathered that it was a general acquiescence by the Government in the idea that certain portions of this account would be subject to audit. But before we leave this point, I should like to be assured that that undertaking given by the Government does affect the point that I was about to raise. I had not up to the moment at which I was interrupted made clear the actual point to which I was coming.

Mr. MANDER: On a point of Order. Will it not be necessary for this Estimate to be withdrawn and another one submitted in accordance with what took place last Friday?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I think not. The Estimate itself, after all, is quite unaffected by what happened on Friday. The Notes are not really part of the Estimate at all.

Sir G. COLLINS: I think that is a misunderstanding, which I hope I can clear away, and—

Mr. ALBERY: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I would like to know whether, so to speak, he is interrupting me or whether I am to continue. Perhaps it would be easier if I finished what I was about to say. Under paragraph (a) there is £75,000 provided
as a maximum for administrative purposes, and under (b) there is further provision up to £125,000—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not the Estimate before us.

Mr. ALBERY: Do I understand you to say, Captain Bourne, that the amount referred to in paragraph (b), for which there is a token grant of £1,000, is not provided for in this Estimate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Most obviously not. The hon. Gentleman must confine his discussion to the Estimate now before the Committee.

Mr. ALBERY: Of £1,000? I will endeavour to do that, and I will make my point in this way. There is certain provision under paragraph (a) and certain provision under paragraph (b), and, as I understand it, the amount under (a) must not be exceeded. At the same time in the aggregate a larger amount is provided, and I am quite unable to see how the House of Commons can be assured that the amount expended under that heading has not been exceeded if the Auditor-General is not to audit the account in detail.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. H. STEWART: The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) asked a question in regard to old boats and new boats, and I think it is easy to answer that question. It is in the Duncan Report.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Duncan Report does not govern this estimate.

Mr. STEWART: I was saying that the answer is in the Duncan Report. You cannot leave the herring industry to suffer from a process of cruel attrition. We have to help it by buying up some of the older boats and by buying new boats, because they can be worked at about half the cost of the old boats. If the whole fleet were equipped with new boats, there would not be nearly the distress that there is at the present time. We are dealing with the general administration of a service preliminary to the operation of a scheme, and I hope that the Herring Industry Board, when it is appointed, will this year act with the greatest possible caution, and will not attempt, as other similar organisations have in the last two years, to use all its powers at
once. The herring industry looks to this board with hope, but, to be frank, with a certain amount of fear. If the board is to proceed cautiously, let the licensing part of the business be the second part of its activity, and let the marketing activity be the first interest that it has. In order that the scheme may work smoothly and be a success this year, I beg the Government to impress upon the board the necessity for gentle, cautious action in taking its powers and using them.

10.32 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I will reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery). In paragraphs (a) and (b) of the first note on page 20, the total granted-in-aid by the Government for the purposes outlined is £125,000. Of that sum an amount not exceeding £75,000 can be spent according to paragraph (a). If by careful administration the administrative expenses are less than £75,000—suppose for the sake of argument they were only £50,000, the difference between £125,000 and £50,000, that is, £75,000, can be spent by the board for the purposes outlined in paragraph (b).

Mr. ALBERY: I am afraid I cannot understand that because paragraph (a) says, "such sums not exceeding £75,000."

Sir G. COLLINS: The sum for administrative expenses is not to exceed £75,000. The Government have given an inducement to the board to save money on administration so that public money will be well spent by providing that if it is leas titian £75,000, the amount saved can be spent as outlined in paragraph (b):
for promoting the sale of herring or products thereof, promoting marketing developments, or promoting or carrying out schemes of research or experiment.
The hon. Gentleman's next point was with regard to the accounting for this expenditure. It will not be accounted for in detail because it consists of free grants by the Government for the express purposes outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Mr. ALBERY: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point I would say that he has half answered my question as regards paragraph (a), but I do not think he has quite answered it as regards (a) and (b) taken collectively.
There is no safeguard that the actual amount spent under (a) might not, in fact, be more than is authorised. The total amount of money provided may be £125,000 and Parliament has no safeguard that there might not be spent under (a) a greater amount than £75,000, instead of a lesser amount. That is the main point I wish to raise.

Sir G. COLLINS: The estimate explains that expenditure out of the grant-in-aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, that is, he will not know whether it is spent on salaries or travelling allowances, etc., but he will know the total amount issued under Subhead A and obviously he will see that this does not exceed the sum of £75,000 provided for in the Bill.

Mr. ALBERY: If the right hon. Gentleman assures the House that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will know that that sum cannot be exceeded, of course I must accept his assurance, but I cannot see that it is made quite clear either by the note or the restriction put upon the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Sir G. COLLINS: I will certainly give that assurance, and I will take further steps to see that the words I have used to the Committee this evening will be implemented in the future when the Bill becomes an Act and comes into operation. Now I turn to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison). As my right hon. Friend correctly said through an Amendment to the Bill on Friday audited statements of the application of the Herring Fund Advances Account—this large sum of £600,000 are to be transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I hope with that explanation he may be satisfied. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was anxious that during the present season the fishermen round our coasts should receive benefits from this Measure, and from the estimates which we are voting this evening, and he pressed the Government to expedite it with all possible speed. He appealed to us to rush the matter. I think he cannot charge it against us that since the Bill was introduced there has been a moment's delay. We would all have liked to see it in operation earlier, but
may I recall to his memory that the Bill received its Second Reading only some 16 or 17 days ago, that it passed through the Committee stage on Tuesday of last week, and received its Third Reading on Friday. It is now in another place, and though I cannot give an undertaking on this point we hope it may receive its Second Reading there this week. Therefore, though we may be charged with many things, I think that on this occasion we have gone full speed ahead, and that there has been no delay in passing this Bill, which I hope may produce substantial benefits for the fishermen.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman heard the point of Order that I raised at the beginning, and heard the Chairman's Ruling on the matter, and the precedent the Chairman quoted when he said that six months before the legislation was passed under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act the Estimate was passed and operated. What I was pressing the right hon. Gentleman for was the operation of this Measure at the very earliest possible moment.

Sir G. COLLINS: I will repeat to the hon. Member the assurance that there will be no delay of any character in putting into operation this Measure and applying the money voted by Parliament.

Mr. MAXTON: Can it start to-morrow?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir. We cannot start until the Bill becomes law and until schemes under the Bill are in operation. The hon. Member will recollect that the terms of the Bill lay down that the board must prepare a scheme providing for the reorganisation of the industry. A certain time has to be allowed for the scheme to be laid before Parliament and for objections to be heard. After the objections have been heard and considered by the Minister, then the scheme will be approved by Parliament and will begin to operate.

Mr. MAXTON: How long are we going to wait for it?

Sir G. COLLINS: Until Parliament has seen fit to lay down a definite date.

Mr. MAXTON: I have just obtained a Ruling from the Chair which entitles the right hon. Gentleman to go ahead and take no notice of the legislation. It was something new to me and I hesitated
about it, but now that I have obtained it I urge the Minister to go ahead and use it to the fullest extent in order to get a temporary device by which the fishermen may be aided next week, until the whole machinery is put into operation. I take it that the Minister is declining to do that, and that he must wait for the somewhat cumbrous machinery—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I might add one thing which I did not make clear to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). As in the previous case, the case I cited, involved, the passing of a Consolidated Fund Bill, almost immediately after the Supplementary Estimate, and before the Estimate could be operative another Consolidated Fund Bill would have to be passed.

Sir G COLLINS: The two cases cited by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) are not on all fours and do not make a strict comparison. I am surprised to find the hon. Member entering into the Debate in a new guise, that of constitutional financial purist. I will remind him that in such matters three governing factors have been discussed, I understand, between the Government, the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. They are that an enabling Bill or a financial resolution must be introduced before the Estimate is presented—which was done in this case—that the Estimate must be clearly noted as subject to statutory sanction, and that the enabling Bill must receive the Royal Assent before the Consolidated Fund Bill, which gives the Treasury the necessary authority to issue the money asked for in the Estimate. There were three similar cases last year. We are basing our case on precedent—three cases in 1934 and further cases a few 'years ago. I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). He asked about the £600,000. Let me explain that more fully. The £600,000 is divided into two sums, £200,000 for working capital for the purposes of the board, and £400,000 by way of loan from the Treasury for the purposes stated on page 21 of the Estimate. He asked whether it was right or wise for the Government to lend money for the construction of new boats and at the same time for the purchase of redundant boats. The money lent by the Government for the purchase of
redundant boats is transferred to the board for use by them either for the purchase of redundant boats or for the building of new, boats. I can give no undertaking that the board, in their judgment, will use the money for the purchase this year of redundant boats. They may think that these boats can be broken up, or small amounts paid for them, next year; I do not know, and I can give no undertaking; but I tan visualise that, with the board in working order and with an increased market gained through the skill of the board, they may have regard to what is happening in other countries where expense is being saved by the building of new boats, and they may think that it is in the interests of the industry to lend money for the building of new boats for the herring industry. As the Committee know, these matters are outside the control of His Majesty's Government. The board will decide to do one thing or another, and it will be left with the board, after they have reached general agreement with the Government as to the lines on which they shall travel, to control their own day-to-day working.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Surely the House will have an opportunity of criticising in some way any action taken by the board—say when estimates come before it for consideration?

Sir G. COLLINS: Parliament will retain complete control. Each year, after the end of this financial year, there will be presented to Parliament an estimate showing the sums to be spent by the board on the various items, so that Parliament will have an opportunity of being informed, through these yearly estimates, how the board is proceeding, and will be able to judge of its work.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the activities of the board, and the manner in which the money has been expended during the previous year, also be laid before Parliament for consideration?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir that is expressly provided for in the Bill. The board will make a report to Parliament, and I think the report has to be presented within three months after the end of the financial year. An Amendment to that effect was moved by the right hon. Gentleman, and was accepted by the Government as a distinct improvement. The
House of Commons, therefore, will be informed each year of the activities of the board, and will be able to take a survey of its work in the past and to consider whether it has expended wisely the money entrusted to it by Parliament. I have endeavoured to answer the main points that have been put to me. If I did not, in my opening speech, go into details on these points, it was not from any lack of respect to the Committee, but because I have dealt with them on several occasions recently and I feared that some hon. Members right feel that the herring industry had monopolised too much of the time of the House. I hope, however, I have said enough this evening to justify the Government in coming to the Committee to ask for its assent to this Vote.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand you, Captain Bourne, to rule that it is competent for the Government to introduce a supplementary estimate which is based on information that is either inaccurate or may become inaccurate, and that we can still proceed'? Is it not the fact that at the moment we are dealing with an estimate based on information which is now quite inaccurate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The note in question is not printed in the usual type that is used for explanatory notes to an Estimate, and, therefore, I must hold that it is on the same footing as a financial memorandum attached to a Bill. It is explanatory, but it is not in any way binding if subsequent alterations are made in the Bill governing the Estimate. It is merely explanatory, and has no force as far as the actual Estimate is concerned.

Mr. MANDER: If the notes were extremely inaccurate, should we still have to proceed on information which was technically wrong?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The speech of an hon. Member introducing a Bill might be inaccurate, but that would not invalidate the Bill.

(CLASS III.)

PRISONS DEPARTMENT FOR SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,955, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course
of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Prisons Department for Scotland and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics, Defectives, and Inmates of the State Inebriate Reformatory, and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Are we to have any explanation regarding this supplementary estimate? I think there are certain points which various Members would like to raise?

10.51 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I thought that, perhaps, Members would like to raise their points, and that I could then deal with them.

Mr. MACLEAN: Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee to have an explanation first so that the points can be raised later?

Mr. SKELTON: I will certainly do that. The total of the supplementary estimate is £2,955. Of that the greatest amount is the last item under Subhead Z, relating to appropriations-in-aid of £1,690. That is made necessary because the amount received from the produce of manufactures and the farms has been less by that sum than in the previous financial year. Therefore, the deficiency has been made to appear as a supplementary estimate. As to the amounts of £60 under Subhead A, for salaries, and £757 under Subhead C for pay and allowances of officers, these additional sums are required in the first place to meet the cost of the restoration as from 1st July, 1934, of half the emergency reductions in pay made in 1931, and secondly for the consolidation of the salaries of civil servants, representing ordinary increases of salary. The additional sum of £448 required under Subhead N, which relates to new buildings and alterations, is required to meet a payment due to a contractor in 1933. It could not be paid over earlier for the reason that the contractor himself died and there was some delay by his executors in obtaining and producing the title necessary before the Exchequer would pay over the sum due to the contractor's estate. I think that covers the whole subject matter of the supplementary estimate.

Mr. MACLEAN: As this Vote deals with prisons, I should like to ask the
Under-Secretary or you, Captain Bourne, whether we shall be entitled to deal with any questions bearing upon the administration of any of the prisons in Scotland during the past year, or since the original estimate was passed?

10.54 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I think the hon. Member would not be entitled to do that. On a supplementary estimate we deal only with the items necessitating the increased charge, and it is quite obvious that on these items the particular questions which the hon. Member wishes to raise cannot arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then although this Supplementary Estimate deals with salaries, with the pay and allowances of officers, with new buildings and alterations and with appropriations-in-aid, amounting in all to £2,955 we are debarred from discussing matters of administration within the prisons.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, that has been the old and long-standing rule in Committee of Supply. Where a supplementary sum is asked for the only thing before the Committee is whether the Supplementary Estimate is sufficient to meet those particular items. General questions of policy ought to be discussed on the original Estimate.

Mr. LANSBURY: There are items for extra salaries and allowances. Are we not entitled to discuss why they are required. There may be inefficient or improper administration that necessitates this extra money. Surely before we vote it we should have the reasons why it is needed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened very carefully to the Minister's statement. He stated what is also stated in the note opposite the Estimate, that the increases of pay are necessary for the restoration of the cuts, which were decided on after the Estimates for the year had been brought in.

Mr. LANSBURY: Surely we have a. right to criticise the conduct of the officers concerned and maintain that the cuts should not be restored.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I think the restoration of the cuts was a matter of general policy affecting the whole civil service and the only question that arises on this occasion is whether the money asked for is sufficient or insufficient.

Mr. LANSBURY: There has not, as far as I know, been a Vote laying it down that the whole of these cuts are to be restored. These Estimates are brought up merely for the House of Commons to discuss in the ordinary way. I suggest that you cannot say this has been determined as a matter of general policy, and we cannot discuss the rights and wrongs of it. Why should there be a Vote if we are not allowed to discuss it? I beg that you will reconsider the matter from that point of view.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the first point, I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The first Vote taken to-day raised it on the general question. Why it has been necessary to ask for special Votes beyond that I cannot say.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not quite sure what Vote you are referring to. I am not aware that there was a general Vote brought forward to-day dealing with the restoration of the cuts.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: "Class I, Vote 26 (Civil Service Remuneration, etc.). Restoration of part of Emergency Reduction." The Committee has already come to a decision on that point.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Committee has not given a decision on this estimate. It gave a decision on the estimates embodied in the Vote that you put to the Committee. We are now asked to give another Vote for another set of services. I submit that we are entitled to discuss whether or not the Committee will grant the restoration of these cuts. There is no decision that they shall be restored, or we could not be called upon to give a vote on the subject to-night. If you will consider the matter, I think the Vote brought before the Committee gives us the right to discuss the why and the wherefore of the issue.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the why and the wherefore of this particular issue is a very narrow one on this Vote.

Mr. MAXTON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for establishing that point, but I want to oppose the restoration of the cuts to the officers in the prison service in Scotland, because during this last year there has been the most positive public evidence that the officers in the Barlinnie Prison and the Peterhead Prison in Scotland have been guilty of grave dereliction of duty.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is getting to the point of introducing the general question, and neither the general nor detailed question of prison administration can arise on this Vote.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that the House of Commons has the right, before voting money, to ventilate grievances. One of the reasons the House of Commons has this Committee is to enable the Members of the House to bring up matters of grievance. Here is a proposal to restore cuts in certain cases, and we maintain that we have a right to say that, because of certain conduct and certain conditions, these cuts ought not to be restored. Surely it is the constitutional right of the Committee of the House of Commons?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confusing the difference between the Committee on the main question and the Committee on supplementary questions. He is trying to raise the general question of the administration of His Majesty's prisons in Scotland, and there is nothing in this Vote which I can see relating to that question. That should be raised when the main estimates for His Majesty's prisons in Scotland come round, because it really challenges the general administration of the whole department, and that does not arise on this occasion.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: In this estimate we are being asked to vote for the restoration of a certain cut that was made in the salaries of certain officials in the prisons of Scotland. We can take exception to the restoration of that part of the reduction that took place in 1931, and in taking exception to the restoration of that part of the cut we can state our reasons. If we think that the present officials have done something which, in our opinion, does not warrant their re
ceiving the restored cut, surely we are entitled to ventilate that particular reason? I submit that hitherto in the House of Commons, even upon supplementary estimates, we have had that right. If you are ruling to-night that we are not to continue the right to give reasons why we should not grant a supplementary estimate which is tantamount to an increase to those prison officials—

Mr. PIKE: Does the hon. Member suggest that the restoration of the cuts to anybody, irrespective of what the hon. Member thinks they have done to deserve it or not, is an increase of wages? Is that a new law he is laying down for his party?

Mr. MACLEAN: I am laying down no new law, but merely stating that we are being asked as a House of Commons to vote money to increase that which has been received by these officers since 1931. Surely this House is entitled in such circumstances to state the reasons why certain officials who are going to benefit by the restoration of cuts should not receive it. This is the only occasion on which we have an opportunity of discussing the conduct of certain of these officials. If you insist upon your Ruling you are narrowing down the limits within which this House can discuss supplementary estimates in a manner that, as far as I am aware, has not taken place hitherto.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I must adhere to my original Ruling. I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member and the Leader of the Opposition have said. There is a very old standing Rule which was laid down I think by Mr. Speaker Peel—I am speaking from memory—as to what are the limits of discussion on supplementary Estimates, and it has there been clearly laid down that where a small sum of money only is asked for over and above the original Estimate that that does not re-open wide questions of policy on the original Estimate. I am bound to hold that the administration of individual prisons raises wide questions of policy and that they must be raised either on the original Estimate or on some other occasion on which the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland comes into question. It is quite clear that this very small increase cannot be used as a peg on which to hang a very wide ques
tion of policy. Therefore, I adhere to my original Ruling that that discussion is not in order.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I very respectfully differ from your Ruling on this occasion, because we are faced with an entirely new set of conditions. We are in effect voting the restoration of cuts to a number of officers whose conduct hon. Members wish to discuss. Looking back, I think I have heard discussions of that character on a supplementary Estimate of this kind. We cannot contest your Ruling at too great a length. I agree that you have been extremely patient with us, but we shall have to try and raise the question in some other form so as to get another Ruling on the matter, because I and my hon. Friends thoroughly disagree with it. I cannot however carry the matter further to-night.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I will continue now the speech that you interrupted. I had thought that I should have been in order in raising those two matters and I leave it simply by saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland knows that there is grave disquiet in the minds of the people of Scotland about the state of prison administration in that country. He has recognised that to the extent of setting up a form of inquiry into the internal affairs of the prisons. We will leave that question, subject to your Ruling, until we get the complete estimate. I will confine myself strictly to the supplementary estimate and that part of it which deals with the provision in the appropriation-in-aid which shows a reduction of nearly £2,000 in the amount that was estimated to come to the Department for work done in the way of manufacture of farm produce. That is a very considerable difference in the estimate. There is £2,000 out, in a total and of £12,000. The Under-Secretary has not told us why there should have been such a tremendous drop in the value of the work of the men confined in His Majesty's prisons. I understand that all the farm produce is consumed either by the prisoners themselves or by the prison officers. They have a sure market for their produce at their own door. They sell all they produce to the prisons and therefore are not up against the fall in prices which faces the herring people and the cattle
people. I cannot see why the manufactures of the crudest and simplest manual operations should have ceased to find the market which they had previously. I should like to know how the officials in Scotland, who presumably made the estimate of the income from the work of prisoners, have made such a miscalculation as to the value of it.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not know that I can add anything to what I have said. An estimate of the amount which may be derived from the produce of the farms and the work of prisoners cannot be exact, and the causes of the decline cannot be controlled. I do not think that there is anything surprising that an estimate of this nature should have turned out inaccurate to this extent.

Mr. MAXTON: Perhaps I should have given the hon. Member warning, but the estimate is out by 20 per cent. in a matter in which they have records for years and years. It is not a matter which could have been affected by some act of God. There are statistics for an extended period, and there must be something radically wrong in the higher command in Scotland if we cannot get a better estimate than this.

Mr. SKELTON: I recognise the difficulty if this was an incorrect estimate of expenditure. If on an ordinary item of expenditure there had been a miscalculation the hon. Member might well ask how it came about, but this is a case where receipts have turned out to be less than anticipated. That is a matter which is in quite a different category. At the beginning of the financial year there must always be some doubt as to how much a particular item will bring in. It is clear that you are in an entirely different region from an estimate of expenditure put forward by a department, because from years of experience in the latter case an estimate can be made with very great accuracy. When you are dealing with the sale of prison produce you are in a different region.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that this matter requires further explanation. The details given on page 9 of the estimate state:
Additional provision required to meet a deficiency in receipts from manufactures and farms, £1,690.
The Under-Secretary says that this is not an expenditure but rather a loss of receipts. Are we, then, to believe that articles were manufactured at a loss, or that the total of articles fell short; or that they were sold at a loss? We ought also to know whether the discontent that has been evident in the prisons of Scotland during the past year has been the reason for this falling off in income. It is probably not fair to press for any detailed information at the moment, but instead of riding off in a cavalier fashion the Under-Secretary would be wise to Say that he is prepared to get the information and give an explanation later.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: Following the point of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who said that the greater part of these products was consumed by inmates and officers of the prisons, would the Under-Secretary state whether that is the case? Why should this deficiency of £1,690 arise if that is the case? On the other hand, can he say whether the prison produce is placed upon the market in competition with the produce of agriculture If so, does it not show a complete lack of business knowledge on the part of the persons who do the marketing, and does it not warrant an inquiry as to whether some extra advice should be given to the people who are attempting to compete in the open market with the requisite knowledge?

11.20 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry if I seemed to deal with this matter cavalierly but such was certainly not my intention. Without going into great detail I may give this further explanation, my information having been reinforced since my previous statement. The greater part of this sum of £1,600 is due to the fact that a particular order—the exact nature of which I am not yet familiar with, but which can be stated on the Report stage, if desired—which it was anticipated would come to the Scottish prisons, or one of them, in the course of the financial year, did not materialise. As to the question, whether the articles were manufactured or not, I think the answer is in the negative. With regard to the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr, Pike) to make sure no Government department carries on
farming without the closest attention from the greatest number of experts, I think it is clear that a very small part of this £1,600 is attributable to unsuccessful farming operations. He may rest assured, since the main part of the sum is due to the other cause I have named, that there has been no unlucky transaction on a large scale in bacon or eggs or anything of that kind.

APPROVED SCHOOLS, ETC., SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Grants in respect of the expenses of the Managers of Approved Schools and of the expenses of Education Authorities in Scotland in respect of children and young persons committed to their care.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so in order to call attention to the fact that it is now half-past eleven and the Government have already got five Votes, some of considerable importance, which have been discussed but not over-discussed. I think it is asking the Committee to go a very long way if we are to take the other Votes on the Paper to-night. If we report Progress now it should be easy on another occasion to get through the remaining Estimates in the name of the Financial Secretary. A number of the Votes which are down for consideration are such as will need discussion, and, while we are quite willing, when we agree, as we did agree on the Herring Fishery Bill in principle, to abide by that decision, we cannot give up our right to ask Ministers to make statements on those Votes or to discuss them to some extent. I think the Government have done very well to-night, thanks to the reasonableness of the powerful Opposition, and I hope they will agree to report Progress.

11.25 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): While I agree that certain. progress has been made, I hoped that without asking Members to sit much longer and without putting too great a strain upon
their industry, we might have secured the next two Votes on the Paper, for approved schools and Colonial and Middle Eastern Services. I understand, from inquiries I have made, that a very small amount of discussion is necessary on those Votes, and if we could get these, the Government would be prepared to report Progress and take the Ministry of Transport and other Votes on some other day. There is a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Labour at the bottom of the list, and I understood that a protracted discussion would take place on that Vote and so I was anxious to get the Committee to such a stage that a long discussion could be taken on that Vote.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I cannot speak for Scottish Members, but whenever there is a Scottish subject Scottish Members are very industrious in putting points of view which have to be answered. It is true that the Ministry of Labour Vote may take some time, but the Government must give us time, and we must not be asked to give up one set of rights in order to establish another. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us go home now and take our chance on other Votes, in view of the fact that there has been no obstruction at all this evening. It is unreasonable to ask us to go further, because once we start on approved schools in Scotland I do not know how long we may not continue. I have had notice indirectly from one hon. Member that he has a few points to put on the subject of the Middle Eastern Services, and I may want to say something on it also, and so we may be sitting here till the morning.

Mr. MAXTON: I understand that the Patronage Secretary wants us to get the two Supplementary Estimates which he mentioned and then finish, and is not proposing to proceed with the consolidation Bill.

Captain MARGESSON: I meant as far as the Supplementary Estimates were concerned, but the Government certainly want to take the Committee and Third Reading stages of that consolidation Bill and the Report stage of the Housing (Scotland) Money Resolution.

Mr. LANSBURY: As far as I am concerned, the two matters outside the
Supplementary Estimates it was agreed should be taken to-night. I am asking that we should report Progress on these Supplementary Estimates, and we do not propose to discuss either the consolidation Bill or the Housing Resolution. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to finish now.

Captain MARGESSON: As usual, I find it very difficult to resist the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and in the circumstances I will accede to his request.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision for the prevention of overcrowding in Scotland, the re-development of areas in connection with the provision of housing accommodation, and the reconditioning of buildings, to make provision for the establishment in Scotland of a housing advisory committee and of commissions for the management of local authorities' houses, to amend the enactments relating to the housing operations of public utility societies and other bodies, to provide for the consolidation of housing accounts and subsidies, and to amend the enactments relating to housing in Scotland, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of the present Session'), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

A.—Of such expenses as may be incurred by the Department of Health for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as 'the Department')—
(1) in defraying the expenses of any Scottish Housing Advisory Committee appointed under the said Act of the present Session;
(2) in making, during the five years next after the date on which the Department recognises any central association or other body established for the purpose
919
of promoting the formation and extension of housing associations and of giving them advice and assistance, grants in aid of the expenses of that association or body;
(3) in making annual contributions towards expenses incurred by local authorities in providing, with the approval of the Department, housing accommodation required for the purpose of putting an end to overcrowding, or of providing for displacements occurring in carrying out re-development under the said Act of the present Session, being accommodation provided in houses the erection of which is begun on or after the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, but so, however, that such a contribution shall be payable during a period of forty years only, and that the amount thereof shall be the sum of six pounds fifteen shillings in respect of each house, except that—
(a) where it is necessary for a local authority, being the town council of a large burgh, to provide such accommodation on an extensive scale in one or more re-development areas, and the Department are satisfied that, by reason of the costliness of the provision so made, the total annual expenditure likely to be incurred by the local authority in providing such housing accommodation as aforesaid is substantially greater than the prescribed equivalent per house, the amount of the contribution in respect of a house in any such re-development area may be such larger sum than six pounds fifteen shillings, but not exceeding ten pounds fifteen shillings, as may be sanctioned by the Treasury; and
(b) where the Department are satisfied that the total annual expenditure likely to be incurred by a local authority other than the town council of a large burgh in providing such housing accommodation as aforesaid is substantially greater than the prescribed equivalent per house, in consequence of the remoteness of the sites of any houses in which such accommodation is provided from centres of supply of building labour and material, and the impracticability of obtaining for such houses higher rents than are ordinarily payable by persons employed in agriculture or fishing, or by persons of a like economic condition, the amount of the contribution in respect of any such house may be such larger sum than six pounds fifteen shillings as may be sanctioned by the Treasury;

(4) in making, towards expenses incurred by housing associations in the provision of such housing accommodation as aforesaid under arrangements made with local authorities under the said Act of the present Session, the like contributions as if the accommodation had been provided by a local authority;

(5) in making in respect of works proposed to be executed by a local authority the like contributions as the Department might have made under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, if the authority had made to another person in respect of the works the maximum grant permissible under those Acts.

B.—Of such additional sums as may become payable under Section twenty-three of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, by reason of—
(1) the extension of the provisions of that Section to expenses incurred by local authorities in providing, with the approval of the Department, accommodation required for providing for displacements, occurring in carrying out-re-development under the said Act of the present Session, from houses unfit for human habitation and not capable at reasonable expense of being rendered so fit, and in maintaining accommodation so provided;
(2) any provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling local authorities to include, in an area declared under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, to be a clearance area, any land belonging to them and applying the provisions of that Act to land surrounded by or adjoining a clearance area and belonging to local authorities;
(3) the making of contributions under the said Section twenty-three in respect of houses provided by housing associations under arrangements made under the said Act of the present Session;
(4) any provision of the said Act of the present Session substituting for the provisions of Section twenty-five of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, provisions requiring the Department, after the first day of October in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-seven and in each third succeeding year, to lay before the Commons House of Parliament a draft of an order providing in relation to contributions under the said Section twenty-three either—
(a) for the termination of the Department's obligation to make such contributions in the case of new houses which have not been rendered available until after such date as may be provided for by the said Act of the present Session; or
(b) for the continuance thereof without alterations; or
(c) for the alteration of the amount of the contributions in the case aforesaid or of the period for which they are to be payable, or of both.

C.—Of such additional sums as may become payable under section four of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, by reason of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling the Department to make under the said section contributions towards expenses incurred by local authorities in making grants in respect of
applications for assistance received before the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight;

D.—Of such additional sums as may become payable under section five of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. (Scotland) Act, 1919, or under sub-section (3) of section one of the Housing, &c. Act, 1923, by reason of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session providing that as from the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the contributions for any financial year to be made by the Department under the said sections in respect of any scheme, other than a scheme for the provision of houses for persons in the employment of, or paid by, a local authority, shall—
(1) in the case of contributions under the said section five, be the amount, if any, by which the balance of estimated expenditure over estimated income for that year in respect of the scheme exceeds an amount equal to the produce of a rate of four-fifths of one penny in the pound for that year levied in the authority's district;
(2) in the case of contributions under the said sub-section (3) be an amount equal to one-half of such balance as aforesaid, save in so far as may be otherwise determined by the Department with the approval of the Treasury.

For the purposes of this Resolution—
the expression "large burgh" has the like meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929;
the expression "prescribed equivalent" means the equivalent of ten pounds per annum for forty years or such other equivalent as may be substituted therefor by virtue or in consequence of any order made by the Department in pursuance of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session for the review of contributions thereunder;
the expression "estimated" means (subject to the provisions of any agreement made before the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five)—
(a) in relation to income, estimated upon the basis that income from rents is taken to be an amount equal to the
922
aggregate annual rents of the houses provided or acquired by the local authority under the scheme as accepted at the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five;
(b) in relation to expenditure, estimated upon the basis that expenditure in respect of supervision and management, repairs, unoccupied houses, and irrecoverable rents, is taken to be an amount equal to the aggregate of the two following sums—
(i) a sum bearing the same proportion to income from rents (estimated as aoresaid) as normal charges in respect of those matters during the five years ending on the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, as accepted, bore to gross estimated rent income during those five years, as accepted; and
(ii) a sum equal to 2 per cent. of income from rents (estimated as aforesaid);

the expression "accepted" means accepted by the Department for the purpose of the determination of the contribution payable by them in respect of the scheme;

the expression "normal charges" used in relation to repairs means as regards any year in which, in consequence of regulations made by the Department, no charge or a charge of less than 15 per cent, of the gross estimated rent was made in respect of repairs, a sum equal to the said 15 per cent."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.